Who are this "vast majority of the left"?

Same straw man as Martin Aimless has been beating up according to the Guardian.

Agree with the basic points, of course.

I completely agree with Dave that terrorism needs to be beaten.

I presume that in somewhere like Afghanistan he can but mean that the terror of American (and British occupation) needs to be taken on by all means necessary. It has recently been announced that deaths caused by American forces in that country exceed those caused by the Taliban.

And I’m sure that Dave will be pleased to hear that his voice of reason is being echoed in Iraq where 57% of the population believe attacks on coalition forces are acceptable. They clearly take the view that moral persuasion alone won’t get the terrorists to withdraw and favour a ‘helping hand’ to send them back to Brize Norton and Andrews Air Base.

(Incidentally 46% in Iraq believe civil war is less likely if coalition forces withdraw, as opposed to 35% who think that it would be more likely – Source: ABC/BBC/NHK poll published yesterday).

And of course we will not, as Dave writes, “achieve this…by regarding al Qa’eda as somehow allies of convenience”

Absolutely. I can but presume that he also thinks, like me, that we might need to go a lot further than that. If necessary, we need to actually link up with real life fascists as the Indian nationalist leader, Bose, did with the Japanese in WWII with their support for his Indian National Army.

Because, as I write in the latest article on my site “Bose was completely correct in his tactics. He sought to profit from the current difficulties of the main enemy from fashioning a temporary alliance with their strongest foes. This was done with a full knowledge of the baseness of the Japanese regime but also with an understanding of the full horror of the Raj”. http://southpawpunch.blogspot.com/2007/09/india-history-rewritten.html

The Communist Party of India was horrified by this action of Bose. And they also refused to back the Independence movement instead during World W II and concentrated their efforts on helping the Allies to win. They were thus outflanked to the left by Gandhi, who launched the Quit India campaign in 1942 to make hay whilst the colonial power was under pressure.

What sort of credibility would Left forces have in place like Iraq, after the expulsion of the invaders, if they had played no part in forcing them to go?

And if you are going to fight against a common enemy, colonial terrorism, do you combine your military forces with the Islamists etc or do you fight separately and thus in a lot weaker fashion?

Indeed, similar to as Dave asks, why should it be such a difficult concept for the vast majority of the left to grasp that national chauvinism destroyed the Second International – if ‘your country is acting in a imperialist manner, you call for its defeat’ is almost beyond me too.

So I’m glad we are agreed on taking on the terror of the Israelis, the Russians in Chechnya or the regime on Colombia. I’m also with Dave on the side of the, er, ‘terrorists’ against the Terrorists.

What are you doing, using the great name Osler and posting about politics? And playing guitar? Well done. You get a free lesson if you ever find yourself in Germany (and need a lesson of course).

Of course, if I asked SPP why he doesn't take up the armed struggle in Britain's backyard and organise a homegrown paramilitary threat to divert their its forces abroad, he'd weasel about 'provocation' and 'agents provocateurs' rather than explaining just why guerrila war is good in Afghanistan but not in Blighty...

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

If it was Belfast in 1975, then the armed struggle against occupation was correct - substantial support, enough infrastructure so that you wouldn't just get killed on Day 1 etc.

Conditions in Baghdad will be even more so than Belfast then.

Conditions in Bristol or Birmingham now are nowhere near either. It would just a be a meaningless stunt.

SPP's idiocies above provide us with a good example of the need NOT to support the 'elementary' right to national self-determination.

Whose right to self-determination would we be supporting in Iraq for example? As recent events have proved, Iraq is not a nation and is barely a state at the present time.

We should stick to defending human rights and forget the urge to get bogged down in nationalist morasses.

Dave - this is a very poor article coming from a one time Marxist - or at least the slogan 'Neither Washington nor mosque' is very very poor.

How can you hope to win the battle to persuade Muslims to avoid using the tactics of terrorism if you argue that Muslims cannot be won to socialist ideas of strategy and tactics as Muslims? By saying 'Mosques' are a menace equivalent to US Imperialism ('Washington') I am afraid you are entering very dangerous territory indeed. You are also making a fool out of yourself. If Muslims in the face of the racist war on terror feel a stronger identification with Islam - then I see that as an act of resistance. If Muslim women in a racist society like Britain want to wear a hijab out of solidarity with their sisters around the world suffering oppression, then I stand with those women and their right to choose to wear what the hell they like.

The correct slogan for Marxists in this period is 'Neither Washington nor Euston but international socialism'. And get the troops out now.

Beg pardon Dave, my initial question seems to have answered itself in the intervening period.

'Neither Washington nor Euston but international socialism'

kick over the Doric Arch!

Oi, that's one of the best pubs (ok, the only decent pub) in the area.

8 real ales, enough to get any proper lefty salivating.

Neither Harry's Place nor Donovan but international socialism

If Muslims in the face of the racist war on terror feel a stronger identification with Islam - then I see that as an act of resistance
Not if they join far right homophobic,misogynist anti semitic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Or Jihadist groups whose primary target is other Muslims.

BUt if Southpaw's contention is correct that the British were the "main enemy", and that it was correct for Indians to fight against the "main enemy", then does he also support those indians who joined the Indische Freiwilligen Legion of the Waffen-SS.

It would be intersting to know whether Southpaw would have been cheering on these Indian "anti-imperialist" troops during 1944 when they were fighting the Franch resistance.

And Bose who he praises did not start with the japanese as his first preference. Bose first tried to get the USSR to support military action against britain, and was turned down flat, but then he travelled to Berlin and met Hitler, and recruited some 2000 Indians into the Nazi army.

Perhaps Southpaw also supports the idea that some Indian Army POWs were even conscripted unwillingly into the Wehrmacht, and then transferred in 1944 into the Waffen SS. After all they were fighting the "main enemy" the British empire, and if some Jews are made into lampshades then i suppose that is a price worth paying for Southpaw?

BTW - Snowball is completely correct

But, SPP, I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm remembering the last time I asked you that question, and you point blank refused to answer on those grounds. Now, as for being killed, Baader Meinhoff? Symbionese Liberation Army? The SWP is how many strong, enough for a a network of safehouses and a small hinterland, surely?

For violent Islamist groups the "main enemy" is other, non Islamist Muslims.

It is also perhaps worth saying that whatever justification was given by the Indian CP, their position was stupid.

i) the USSR was not at war with Japan, and so defence of the british Empiuire in the far East had nothing to do with defence of the Soviet Union.

ii) An Independent India would have been able to defend itsekf against the japanese if necessary.

iii) Indian independence would have freed up thousands of British troops to serve in North Africa and Europe against the fascists.

The CPGB took a much more independent line, and for example actively supported the 1944 mutiny in the Greek army and navy in Egypt, even to the extent of organising supplies for the mutineers, and the brilliant stunt of substituting leaflets dropped by the RAF onto the mutineers, so that instead of the official leaflets calling for the Greeks to surrender, the RAF ended up droppping a CP leaflet supporting the mutiny and calling for further resistance.

If Muslim women in a racist society like Britain want to wear a hijab out of solidarity with their sisters around the world suffering oppression, then I stand with those women and their right to choose to wear what the hell they like.

The polite word for this argument is 'overdetermined'. First there's the right of women to wear what the hell they like; that's pretty fundamental, irrespective of whether those women are Muslims. It follows from this that Muslim women also have the right to wear what the hell they like - including, of course, the right to wear the hijab, or not to wear the hijab. Finally, if you support the right of Muslim women to choose to wear the hijab, presumably you support it whether or not they're doing it as a gesture of solidarity with oppressed Muslim women around the world. (Shades of Jack Straw - excuse me, would you mind telling me why you're wearing that?)

Pardon the lecture. I can't think of any single thing that's done more to alienate me from the RESPECT project than the omission of those two words - the right to wear the hijab or not.

What excatly is wrong with wearing the hijab?
Many women VOLUNTARY choose to wear it not only to show solidarity with the opressed but as a feminist statment, much like dungarees were in the 60s-80s to show that they are people worthy of respect and not sex objects.
Its a protest against the way women are treated in this sexualised trash culture.

I didn't realise girls and women had completly equal rights in Islamic society. That is impressive. Youu know it really should be publicised more, because not a lot of people realise it.

Let's not forget that in various Middle Eastern dictatorships there are "religious" police to enforce dress codes on women, women can be fined ro brought before courts simply for not wearing the prescribed dress

in other countries, there is often parental or peer pressure to make women conform to oppressive dress codes, irrespective of their own inclination

Phil said: "I can't think of any single thing that's done more to alienate me from the RESPECT project than the omission of those two words - the right to wear the hijab or not."

It doesn't take much effort to see that this is wrong. Just a few examples....

Salma Yaqoob, Comment is Free, 13/10/06

"In relation to the veil this means I defend the right of women to choose, for themselves, to wear the niqab or hijab. But I equally defend the right of women to choose not to wear particular forms of dress, whether it is in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, or in Britain."

Salma Yaqoob, Speech to London ESF, 2004

"Indeed the real crime that is committed against women is when that choice is taken away from them. That’s why I am opposed to the Saudi and Iranian government’s imposition of the veil and that of the Taliban previously. But this is also why I oppose the ban on wearing the hijab. In both cases the woman herself is no longer free to make a choice."

Salma Yaqoob, Birmingham Mail, 17/10/06

"Do we really want to live somewhere where we are told how to dress? I would object to being told to cover my face if I lived in Saudi Arabia. I think it is wrong if women are denied a choice in the matter. But it would be equally wrong to deny women the choice to wear a veil here in Britain."

Let us not forget the enlightened attitudes in Muslim countries to freedom of speech, religion and thought. Or the strenuous programmes of education and hospital building, or the struggle to redistribute wealth to benefit the populations. Let us not forget the accommodating police forces, or local officials who for relatively small sums of money will bend over backward to help whoever asks them. Let's not forget the vibrant intellectual and aetistic cultures flourishing in these countries. Let's not forget that the Arabs invented algebra etc etc.

Full results of the recent BBC/ABC/NHK poll are here (pdf file):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_09_07_iraqpollaug2007_full.pdf

It's interesting that despite their clear distrust of the USA, and approval of attacks on their forces, a slim majority still wants US forces to stay (53-47%):

Leave now
Aug2007 47
Feb2007 35
2005 26

Remain until security is restored
Aug2007 34
Feb2007 38
2005 31

Remain until the Iraqi government is stronger

Aug2007 10
Feb2007 14
2005 19?

Remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently

Aug2007 7
Feb2007 11
2005 16

Remain longer but leave eventually
Aug2007 2
Feb2007 2
2005 3

Never leave
Aug2007 -
Feb2007 1
2005 1

Refused/don’t know
Aug2007 -
Feb2007 -
2005 4

(Q21, p 13 of the linked pdf file above)

Dave, back in New Labour,back in new imperialism. Nick Cohen has another ally. Bye bye from the left as you travel right.

Everyone above has talked about hijab.
Salma talks about niqab as well.
Slightly different additional argument.

Female Genital Mutilation is, I presume injustified even if agreed to by the girl?
Under all circumstances?

Thanks, Brum. I should have specified "in my experience", "in the RESPECT/SWP literature I've seen locally", or similar.

As Snowball (generally).

Red Deathy - you write inaccurately and also what is the similarity between say the FARC and the Symbionese (sic) Liberation Army. Answer: nothing.

I don’t engage with Andy Newman and it would take to long to correct his misrepresentation save it being news to me that the Waffen SS invaded India, unlike the INA.

Sue R,

Your comments are a form of bigotry e.g. “or local officials who for relatively small sums of money” about corruption.

There is extensive corruption amongst petty officials in a ‘Muslim’ country like Yemen. There is also widespread corruption in a ‘Christian’ country like Uganda. Why not just say the darkies can’t hack it?

Although you don’t (well, rarely) need to openly pay backhanders in the West instead your costs are hidden in e.g. planning laws written by lobbyists or paying proper wages to council staff etc.

Do you not think that it may be something to do with the level of development, colonialism and the working of international capitalism rather than the religious views of some?

-
And on a related matter, see if you can guess who said the below (last week) without scrolling to the bottom first.

“Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment - and there isn't any- in the Democrats' failure to stop the war. And you're the ones who have the saying which goes, "Money talks."

"And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa.”

“This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system."

"If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of "globalization" in order to protect democracy."

- and also

“The holocaust of the Jews was carried out by your brethren in the middle of Europe, but had it been closer to our countries, most of the Jews would have been saved by taking refuge with us. And my proof for that is in what your brothers, the Spanish, did when they set up the horrible courts of the Inquisition to try Muslims and Jews, when the Jews only found safe shelter by taking refuge in our countries.”

Osama Bin Laden.

Of course, the large bulk of the video was concerned with Islamist messages but what he says is very much more than the crass ‘convert to Islam’ précis that was the official coverage of his video by state broadcasters like the BBC.

And yes, of course, it is in the main, reactionary rubbish.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/ and also see the article, ‘the Bin Trotsky Video’.

Well said, southpaw.
I have always believed that comrade OBL will eventually come onside.

Well said, southpaw.
I have always believed that comrade OBL will eventually come onside.
This is the beginning, look forward to his next one.

"The vast majority of the left"? Do you mean the far left?

The title of the post was 'neither Washington nor mosque' and you would do well to bear that in mind. Yes I know that 'baksheesh' is payable in many cultures, not just Islamic, and there is corruption in every society etc but some societies have an ideal of transparency while others don't. I just find it disgusting that in the 21st century we are being held hostage to superstition, malevolent superstition at that. OK, so the billionaire Osama bin Laden has a notion about the inferiority of the West, based on events that may or may not have happened 500 years ago, but I'm more interested in what's going on today.

He is the Che Guevara of the millenium, a rich boy who gave it all up to fight the good fight.
Remember Che wasn't always a communist, he too wanted to make an accomodation with US imperialism. His experiences changed his views. The same can happen with OBL.
I always thought he was a cool and sexy dude.

We had a terrorist attack two years ago and there has yet to be a proper investigation into why it was not stopped. If lessons are to be learnt, they are surely to be learnt by having an inquiry into 7/7 and the failures of the intelligence services to stop what appears to have been the most sophisticated terror plot to take place in the UK for years...

We have indeed had a few terrorist attacks, the execution of Jean Charles de Menendes, and the Forest Gate raids for example.

"I presume that in somewhere like Afghanistan he can but mean that the terror of American (and British occupation) needs to be taken on by all means necessary. It has recently been announced that deaths caused by American forces in that country exceed those caused by the Taliban."

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. The US and UK are "terrorists" because they have killed more than the Taliban. Does that mean that the Taliban were terrorists up until the US and UK beat them in terms of scoes on the doors, and does that mean that now they are behind in deaths they have caused the Taliban have ceased to be terrorists? Or were they never terrorists in the first place?

I repeat: the title of Dave's post was neither Washington nor mosque. What I understand him to be adv.ocating is international workingclass independent action. Some people disagree with that, they obviously think 'Mosque is good'. Fine, that's their point of view and it would be a waste of brain cells arguing with them because neither side is going to change it's mind. But it does illustrate the problem that concerns Dave and impelled him to write the post in the first place.

Paddy;

The above comment merely reveals what a vacuous twat you are.

Phil, Duncan, Paul. Fucking hell, Dave Nellist, Peter Taaffe? Anyone? Will any of his comrades issue him some guidance here?

I'm on about the "Osama is the che of the millenium" comment btw.

Let us remind ourselves why that fatuous fool Southpaw "will not engage with me".

I once asked him, as has Red Deathy has done here, why he doesn't advocate terrorism in the UK, if he advocates it abroad, and pointed out that he hadn't got much to lose as under the terms of the terrorism act the comments he had already made were possibly illegal. My point here being to criticise the illiberal and insane "anti-terror" laws of new Labour, but southprick threw his dummy out the pram with a load of self-important guff about entrapment.

obvioulsy faced with a genuine threat of islamist terrorm then MI5 and special branch have nothing better to do than prosecute delusional trots for their armchair fantasies about armed struggle on the blogs.

BUt in refusing to engage, we are left with a reall hole on Southprick's argument.

SPP wrote: "If necessary, we need to actually link up with real life fascists as the Indian nationalist leader, Bose, did with the Japanese"

But the real life fascists that Bose joined up with were not just the Japanese, Bose himself personally met Hitler and recruited 2000 Indians into the Nazi army that later became part of the Waffen SS. Southpaw specifically praises a man by name, Bose, who recruited people to fight for nazi germany, at a time when nazi germany was exterminating Jews, communists, Roma, gays, et al. Sothpaw specifically says it is correct to link up with fascists, and the person he prasies for doing so did in fact link up with Hitler's nazis.

What was the nature of the link up? A confused exchange of letters? No, Bose actually recruited Indian POWs to serve in the German army in the occupation of France, during which occupation French Jews were tranported in cattle trucks to their mass extermination.

What does Southpaw say about this: he defends it saying "we need to actually link up with real life fascists as the Indian nationalist leader, Bose did "

How can any socialist think it could ever be defensible to join into military struggle alongside HItlers nazis or Mussolini's fascists (400 Indians also joined the Italisn army) due to some anti-imperialism of fools.

Unless he explains himself then it is clear to me that Southpaw is actually an anti-semite.

Confusion on both sides of the debate, in the original post by David Osler and in the responses by Snowball, Garcia and Punchdrunk.
To deal with these in order - identifying the main threat as coming from undefined terrorists and arguing for "democracy" as an alternative is crass capitulation to the arguments of B.B.B (Bush, Blair & Brown), while differing on technicalities.

Unfortunately Snowball, in line with the SWP's tail-ending role in Respect, doesn't argue that socialist politics are the alternative, but for a vaguer concept of "solidarity"
In other words, it's possible to unite with those who are in organised religious groupings, without confronting the issue of what political programme they should actually put forward.
That is to severely underestimate the reactionary role that organised religion can play in politics. The evidence of history is that religious groupings do not move over to a socialist position en-bloc.
Which is why it's necessary to fight to win people from the control of organised religion to organised socialist politics.
Not what the SWP have done in Respect, since it clearly has a programme which avoids all mention of the word!

As to Garcia and Punchdrunk, they are just playing devil's advocates and using over-the-top arguments they don't really believe to discredit a genuine anti-imperialist case.
Salma Yaqoub's quoted comments are a fair enough statement of leftish liberal principle, but the issue of the veil and other forms of Muslim dress is a fairly superficial one in a Western society.
More important is the question of what role socialist women would play within Muslim societies where these, and more deep-seated issues of women's opression need to be confronted.
That of course, is up to them to decide and not a bunch of European or American leftists pontificating from afar.

Supporting armed struggle in Belfast in '75. What a load of good that did. Drove the unionist w/c behind the worst of reactionaries and led to untold misery that the Northern Irish (and many British ) peoples are living with today.

SPP,

I'm confuzzled, I didn't even mention FARC - I mentioned Baader Meinhoff and the Symbionese Liberation Army, two similar outfits operating in Western Democracies (Germany and The US respectively)...These groupos operated without a large support network, barely beyond the band of about 10 members all told...

Who is the complete cretin who says wearing the veil is a statement of feminist solidarity.

I suppose wearing chains is a sign of class struggle, and perhaps carving the sign of the cross on yer gob is a symbol of liberation.

Do you live in what world?

In my street, just a few metres from me gaff, there is a woman in 'Purda' who wears the whole Burka. She has a few babies, some of which, the girls, now wear this racist habit.

Convince me that her husband, whom she respectfully follows at paces distance, is not her oppressor.

Alex

I think you are a little harsh on Snowball.

A friend of mine who is Muslim woman, who I know becasue her daughter goes to school with my son, has taken to wearing the hijab specifically for the reasons Snowball states, that she feels it important to her at the moment to publicaly identify with islam. This is her choice not her husbands - who in fact has argued she shouldn't becasue it exposes her to more racism - and her thinking is all about solidarity - defined in her own terms.

It is not wrong for socialists to recognise this phenomenon which is going on among many Muslim women.

On the other hand, another friend of mine who is a refugee from Iran, and has seen the inside of an islamist gaol, reports that in the area of manchester she lives in where there are a lot of Muslims, she has had strangers (men) shout at her in the street for not wearing the hijab once they realise she is Iranian - and she is not even a Muslim.

So the issue is complex, and while we need to defend the right of women to wear or not wear these garments, what we mainly need to do is to challenge the polarisation of the "clash of civilisations" argument, both from its Western and islamist proponents.

Dave Osler's orignal article was deeply problematic because it accepts the category and threat of terrorism as a security and police issue, and it accepts the polarisation between washington's version of democracy and the religious faith of Islam.

The key task to undermining his false polaristaion is to recognise that the terrorism has not arisen becasue the islamists are irrational people who hate our way of life, but becasue Western imperialism and Zionism have created deep and lasting hatred.

The solution needs to be a political one - based upon withdrawl of westerm troops from the occupied lands, withdrawl of western support for the illegitimate pro-Western despots, and an equitable soluton for the palestinians. Until we do that we will have terrorism.

(by the way, the "humorous" title "neither washington nor mosques" identifies to me that dave considers all Muslims to be in some way connected with terrorism)

"terrorism has not arisen becasue the islamists are irrational people who hate our way of life, but becasue Western imperialism and Zionism have created deep and lasting hatred."

I can't let that one pass. Where in this is any conception that terrorism might, on some level, be the responsibility of the terrorists? People have a choice of the manner in which they react. They can always choose - like Southpaw - not to take take up arms.

This kind of assertion - far too common amongst lefties - implies that that fundie terrorism is some kind of 'inevitable' reaction to what 'the West' does. It isn't any more than David Copeland's bombs in Brixton and Brick Lane were an 'inevitable' response to immigration.

Well the SWP is able to identify racist and pseudo-democratic arguments about women's rights when it sees them.
But it's current line is actually a step beyond that, towards adapting to political arguments from its allies that are actually reactionary.
One of the most noteable examples being its line on faith schools, which is actually being promoted by leading members, who've been active in the field of education for years.
On that issue, they're actually in a continuum with New Labour politicians, rather than taking a principled stand.

On the question of the the choices of Muslim women and the effects of racism in Britain, I could offer lots of anecdotal evidence, including about the victim of an honour killing, but it would fill a novel!

There's actually vastly a vastly more diverse range of behaviour amongst the Muslim population of Britain than the press portrays.
I've worked in Southall & Inner and Outer London over the years.
Until quite recently, without knowing their name, it would have been quite hard to distinguish Muslims from other South Asians.
Culturally, there's a lot more similarity between Punjabi and Bengali speakers than to Muslims from the Middle East or Somalia.

But the influx of refugees from the Middle East and East Africa in the past 10 years, altered the situation, and there's been an undoubted attempt to cultivate a stronger pan-Islamic identity by people working within the mosques. There's no doubt that it's also been promoted via funding from the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Western Intervention in "Muslim lands" does act as a spur to Islamic identity politics, but it's largely a myth that the situations in Kosovo, Chechnya, Iraq and Israel-Palestine are all motivated by any generalised "islamophobic" motive.

The the flip side of the "identity" argument, is that there is a growth of cultural chauvinism and separatism, which I'll illustrate with just one anecdote:

About 5 years ago, I was having a meal in a cheap ethnic-Pakistani owned restaurant, in a run-down area.
The owner, because it was near to Christmas, had decorated the premises with some tacky artificial Christmas trees.
As we were paying the bill, an Asian woman burst into a tirade against him about the decorations, shouting: "You're supposed to be a Muslim!"
She was also probably a bit pissed-off by the fact that we were there at all.

Little did she know we were both Jews (eating veggie you understand) and certainly hadn't come in because of the Chrismas theme.
In fact, theologically, a Muslim should have been happier with the ambience than us!
Quite amusing, but who exactly was being more 'multicultural' in this case?

Tom P

You have a good point, that the responsibility for terrorism lies with the terrorists.

But where does that get us? An asymetrical and never-ending cycle of violence where both sides are only responding to the last atrocity by their enemies?

A political solution can only be found by looking at root causes, and trying to find some resolution.

voltaires priest,

Please tell me 'Paddy Garcia' is just insane, trolling badly or really drunk and not a member of the Socialist Party...

Duncan

Paddy Garcia (aka paddy the puritan) is a real person, I have met him and he is not trolling and not drunk (doesn't drink ). He is for real and these are his views , also seen on my blog.

I think he is in the SP as he is a photographer for them.

He is a fuckwit.

Let’s go back to Southpaw, and look what he actually wrote:

“ if necessary, we need to actually link up with real life fascists as the Indian nationalist leader, Bose, did with the Japanese in WWII with their support for his Indian National Army.”

Note he did not write

National liberation struggles may even “link up with real life fascists as the Indian nationalist leader, Bose, did with the Japanese in WWII with their support for his Indian National Army.”

He said that

“We need to”

Who is we, and why do we need to?

It is not irrelevant that Bose met several times with Hitler and raised troops to fight in the fascist army. Soldiers who later became part of the Waffen SS, the military organisation of the Nazi party, and who fought in France during the peiod when the Jews were being exterminated.

Now SouthPaw says that the Waffen SS did not invade India, but this is disingenuous as the “we” he refers to and identifies with made no such distinction. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose specifically believed it was a good idea for the purpose of gaining Indian independence to raise Indian troops who would fight under German command in Europe to conquer Britain for fascism. Only later when he realised that Britain was not going to succumb to the Nazis did he move to his plan B, which was to work with the Japanese for a futile invasion of India.

But note, that Southpaw, not only identifies himself as “we” with Bose, but goes further than defending this as a strategy that might be considered, into saying it is a strategy that we “need to” follow.

According to Southpaw, Bose had a “need to” raise soldiers for Hitler. Or rather with his revealing use of the term “we”, should we understand that Southpaw would have felt the need to raise troops for Hitler? After all Britain was the “main enemy” The "need to" did not start of for Bose as a strategy of an invasion of India, it started as a "need to" help German Nazism conquer Britain, which would have involved the murder of the UK's Jewish population. This is according to Soouthpaw, something that "we" had a "need to" do!!!

The invasion of India by the Indian National Army was quixotic and could have no real impact on the question for independence, because the battle for independence was being won on the political front, and some 20000 members of the army (which would give it a combat strength of perhaps 5000 to 7000) could hardly dent the British rue of India.

The correct position for socialists faced with the phenomenon of the INA was to argue that they were misguided. Of course we would have campaigned against their prosecutions for treason, because as Indians they had no duty of allegiance to the British empire.

However I have no regrets that many of the Indian members of the Waffen SS were summarily executed by the French troops who captured them.

"This kind of assertion - far too common amongst lefties - implies that that fundie terrorism is some kind of 'inevitable' reaction to what 'the West' does. It isn't any more than David Copeland's bombs in Brixton and Brick Lane were an 'inevitable' response to immigration."

Of course the responsibility for terrorism lies with the terrorists. It's possible to identify material causes without seeing them as justifications. This is something the neo-cons (deliberately) fail to understand when they lay into "the root causes brigade".

BTW - I find it odd that those people who comment here and have made veiled accusations of anti-semitism against those of us who argue for a single state solution in palestine are completely quiet when Southpaw argues that socialists should identify with those who actually did fight alongside Hitler in the waffen SS!

When Southpaw describes Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as "we" which he specifically does, then he is identifying with a man who actually rasied troops to fight to extend the nazi holocaust to the British isles.

If that isn't anti-semitiam then I don't know what is.

I've already had a few run-ins on the whole 9-11 issue on other blogs which I do not want to repeat here. Let me just make it clear that I don't think some people on the so-called left realise how incredibly offensive their contention that people somehow deserved to die or were paying for imperialism or any other such nonsense is to those of us that were there that day and witnessed the mass murder that it was.

I was a socialist on 9-11 and I'm a socialist today and I am still convinced that there was not one damn progressive thing about that horrible act for the international working class or the American working class. Good post Dave - don't give up on the left - let's just consider who we actually call "left" going forward.

In fact I propose we stop referring to people who support terrorism against working people as "the left" as they do not represent the tradition of the left - any ideas on an alternate descriptive term? Volty has suggested "fuckwits" but I think we should aim for something slightly more political. :)

Paddy Gracia,

What on earth are doing in the Socialist Party?

Your views such as Bin Laden is 'cool' and he is coming to 'our side' are repulsive and have nothing in common with the politics of the Socialist Party.

"It's possible to identify material causes without seeing them as justifications."

Yes and no. Clearly in Palestine it is a fair argument that Israeli oppression is a major factor fuelling support for Hamas etc. But in Iraq a lot of the killing is the result of religous bigotry, not the occupation. It is that simple and the Left, in my opinion, shouldn't waste time and political capital seeking to "understand" the people involved, or (even worse) try and crudely fit religious atrocities into a crude cause & effect model where all sins (ho hum) lead back to the West.

PS. Someone made the excellent point earlier that taking this sort of stance meant deserting the unionist/loyalist working class in NI. I completely agree. It was only really when I read Loyalists by Peter Taylor that I realised what a fcuked up strategy that was.

Tom P, No, the ‘score on the doors’ are just for illustration. B52s raining bombs on Afghani villagers is terrorism. To properly describe the Taliban, fighting back with their slender resources against the terrorists would break British censorship laws.

Alex, believe me if I say something, it’s because I think it’s true.

Red Deathy, I was comparing FARC (a body with mass support) v the SLA (the opposite).

I’ll dispose of AN’s obsessional slurs in as few bytes as possible - it’s bollocks. Oh and also notice how he repeats the ‘we’ but misses out the “if necessary” and I see no-one else has come to the astonishing, baseless and offensive conclusion that I’m an anti-semite. I will however correct him - he knows that isn’t the reason why I won’t engage with him, details of why are on my site.

"To properly describe the Taliban, fighting back with their slender resources against the terrorists would break British censorship laws."

Do the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban in power then? I'm not clear who they are "fighting back" on behalf of.

Hurrah for SPP!!! Great defender of the working classes and the oppressed! Unless of course you are a woman in Afghanistan or a worker in Manhattan!

SPP,

you compound my confuzzlement.

Let's recap. You aver that partisan/guerilla/terrorist warfare is justified against imperialism.

I query why you do not carry on this struggle yourself in Imperialism's back yard.

You reply that tehre isn't mass support.

I give examples of terrorist groups that didn't have mass support and still managed to operate and cause headaches for imperialism.

You tell me they didn't have mass support.

Now, I fail to see what, strategically, mass support has to do with anything, if the object is to draw down imperialist forces and prevent them from being able to prosecute their war without keeping troops back at home.

Nonetheless, shouldn't you, by your argument, be building for mass support for a gureilla war against imperialism?

More foolishness from Southpaw.

So your argument is that it is not only that "we" "need to" but also "if necessary"

But the specific example you give is Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.

So how does the argument run that is was "necessary" for Bose to raise an Indian national Army?

As Malcom X pointed out "by any means necessary" doesn't mean by any means at all. It means by those means necessary for the achievement of thr desired outcome, and no more than that.

Did the military campaign by the Indian National Army speed by a single day the British withdrawl from India? No it didn't, so obviously it wasn't "necessary".

We could argue that it was understandable, we could argue that it was justiable, but we cannot argue that it was necessary.

And I don't see how you can abstract that fact that the Indian National Army was first declared in Berlin, and the very man who organised it and who you praise for doing so, indeed who you identify with as "we" raised troops to fight in the Wehrmacht and later the Waffen SS.

My conclusion that you are anti-semitic is based upon the fact that you have not clarified that you oppose the idea of Indians fighting in the Waffen SS.

The person you praise and identify with as "we", Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, did not just make a marriage of convenience with the japanese, he went out of his way to help secure a Nazi victory in Europe.

Indeed Bose's argument that helping germany defeat Britain in Europe would lead to independence for India has a lot more internal logic to it than the idea that a tiny military force invading India would contribute to British withdrawal. The purpose of Bose's contribution in Europe was not only to raise troops to directly fight for HItler, but also to call upon the Indian Army fighting in Egypt and North Africa, and later in Italy to mutiny.

If Southpaw believes that "we" "need to" "if necessary" make military alliances with fascists then it is consistent to support the actions of Bose in trying to secure fascist victory in Europe. Indeed there is much more logic to this being "necessary" than a Quixotic adventure in India itself.

It is Southpaw himself who aligned himslef approvingly with Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and aproved of the idea of making allainces with facsism. Ii have merely pointed out that the most important priority for Bose was an alliance with HItler, so it is entrirely reasonable to assume that Southpaw does in fact support Bose's plan A, which was to support german victory in Europe.

I am sorry, but anyone who thinks that a german victory in Europe was a price worth paying for "anti-imperialism" is an anti-semite, becasue they are saying the slaughter of Jews is OK if it acheives a higher purpose. Did Bose know what the real nature of the nazi regime was? Well he must have had a pretty good idea as he went to Berlin and lived there for months, and met Hitler several times.

(BTW - as far as I am concerned his silly attitude of ignoring what i say is entirely based upon this proposterous idea that I am a provocatuer entrapping him into criminality. I don't care what other self-aggrandising spin he has put on it else-where. It is intersting that his concern over the britsh censorship laws seem sutterly misplaced given that a much more high profile perosn than him,, Yvonne Ridley, has specifically praised both the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and not been prosecuted)

Andy:

When Southpaw describes Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as "we" which he specifically does, then he is identifying with a man who actually rasied troops to fight to extend the nazi holocaust to the British isles. If that isn't anti-semitiam then I don't know what is.

Well, I don't think it is anti-semitism - I think it's just SPP being a posturing wazzock, as usual. Heaven forfend that he should actually have to stand by what he writes.

Tom: Where in this is any conception that terrorism might, on some level, be the responsibility of the terrorists?

I don't know how old you are, Tom, but I assume you can remember British bombing campaigns by the IRA. I was a bit out of sympathy with the IRA at the time - I regarded them as bloodthirsty bastards who'd have killed me and my friends without a second thought. Behind closed doors, among fellow socialists, I was even less complementary.

Nevertheless, I believed strongly in British withdrawal and Irish reunification; my sympathies were with the (engineered) nationalist minority in the North of Ireland, particularly those who campaigned for democracy and self-determination - and that includes those who supported the IRA. I thought they were tragically and horribly wrong to support the IRA, but support it they did - and it didn't make their analysis any less correct or their cause any less just.

So, if the conversation turned to IRA terrorism, I would always say that we needed to look at the political context, and in particular at the historic injustices which led people to support the IRA. Calling for active terrorists to pack it in wouldn't address the underlying problem; calling for them to be defeated might actually make it worse, by entrenching the status quo.

Obviously I have even less sympathy with Al Qaeda than with the IRA (this shouldn't need saying, although with Paddy G. around perhaps it does). But the same argument applies: we know they're evil murdering bastards, but we also know they've got lots of support out there. Trying to address the issues which lead people to support them has a chance of eroding that support; trying to defeat the organisation on the military level might just entrench it.

TWP, I think you need to unpack this a little, when you say: "some people on the so-called left [say] that people somehow deserved to die or were paying for imperialism or any other such nonsense "

I have some sympathy for what you are saying, but the position of those who support mass terrorism, and that the victims deserved to die has no support at all in the Labour movement and is therefore a straw man.

The position that the victims died as part of the price of imperialism is a different one. It is mainly ordinary working people who die on both sides in all wars. To a certain degree 9/11 was the war coming home, or as malcolm X said in a different context, the cickens coming home to roost.

That is not to deny that the deaths were appalling, but they were no worse than the greater number of deaths caused by Bill Clinton's terror bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in 1998.

So when liberals say "9/11 changed everything", it is correct to point out there is an element of chavinism, becasue they didn't say the Sudan mass murders by Clinton changed everything. They didn't even say that the Nairobi and Dar-es-salaam bombings by Al Qaeda that were the pretext for Clinton's acttion changed everything.

It was only when people in the first world started dying that suddenly it "changed everything"

Phil: Well, I don't think it is anti-semitism - I think it's just SPP being a posturing wazzock, as usual. Heaven forfend that he should actually have to stand by what he writes.

Well of course Southpaw never has to stand by what he wrotes becasue he hides behind a pseudonym. ;o)

But I don't think it is quite so simple to dismiss as you do.

In the specific context of the second world war and the nazi holocaust, Southpaw has argued support for the position of making a military alliance with fascism, and approvingly identified himself (as "we") with a man who did actively work to secure a nazi victory in Europe.

I don't think we should let it just go when Southpaw praises a man who raised troops for Hitler. That is no sort of "anti-imperialism"

If we look at a different example of say JOhn Amery and the sad collection of misfits who joined the Waffen SS British Free Corps, then anyone who wrote approvingly of Amery's acion would undoubtedly be an anti-Semite.

So what is the difference between Amery and Bose?

At one level it is clear that Amery was a traitor and a facsist and it was absolutley correct to hang him for it.

Bose owed no alleigance to britain and was not therefore a traitor, but he did actively work to secure nazi victory, in full knowledge of what nazism stood for, and what the consequences of it would be. It is hard to beleive that during their four years of service in the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS his troops didn't pick up some inkling of what they were fighting for.

Is this a man that any socialist should praise?

Phil

I'm 36, so yes I do remember a fair bit of the IRA's activity. And my other half and my in-laws are all from a working class NI background (her mum is a catholic, and dad a protestant btw). Whilst I used to be faily pro-Republican, and I'm still pro-nationalist, I've shifted my views as a resulting of talking to them and trying to read books that don't just repeat the arguments I have already heard.

Funnily none of my in-laws, or any other of my friends from NI over the years, supported the "armed struggle". They tend to see the paramilitaries in the same way I see the twats who graffiti my local station. Also how do we interpret someone like David Ervine, who explicitly labeled himself a socialist despite being a loyalist?

More generally on the whole armed struggle point I don't think I would defend it in all but the most (genuinely) extreme circumstances. Killing people because of their politics/religion (the two mixed up in NI) is just fucking brutal and not something socialists should ever advocate.

In addition, once you kick things off it is very hard to stop. If it is Ok for the IRA to kill people in the name of their beliefs, why is it not ok for the loyalists to do the same? I don't think "because I agree with their cause more" is a sufficient reasons to accept people being blown up, shot or whatever.

TWP, you appear (and based on nothing I have said whatsoever, and in the time honoured way of those slurring others ) to imply I supported the 9/11 attacks on Manhattan. That's completely false, I condemned them.

Red Deathy, you give no examples of groups that were worthy of support and did not 'cause headaches for imperialism' rather minor flea bites. If you recall the post about the RAF, which you call the Baader Meinhof group and which is a organisation you referred to you may remember I took apart Dave's contention that they were the same as the IRA.

The SLA, Red Brigades etc strategy is wrong. The FARC, PLO etc are (or have been) entirely different sorts of organisations.

SPP,

in which case, I repeat, what are you doing to built a FARC/PLO flavoured organisation?

If Southpawpunch thinks he too would have joined the Waffen SS and fought for a Nazi victory, then I am afariad he is more than an anti-semite, he is an out and out fascist.
Andy Newman chirrups that a friend of his has adopted the hijab as a way of identifying with the oppressed masses of the Muslim world, well, I can only echo what someone else said above. She's lucky she lives in a country where she has the choice. I remember reading about an international Netball tournament in Iran, where the Iranian girls could not believe that British Muslim girls voluntarily wanted to wear the hijab/niquad/shroud. Does his friend also go along with all the other restrictions on women in Islam, or does she pick and mix her religion? Actually, terrorism has arisen because Islamicist do very much hate our Western (they would say Christian) way of life. The want to impose an Islamic state on everyone. This year I went to Tunisia on holiday and while there I went to Kairouen, one of the most holiest cities in North Africa. The group I was with was taken to the tourist office to be shown a film. The film began by informing us that Mohammed instructed his followers to carry his message to the Arabs, to Africa and to the world. It then proceded to glorify various battles where Islam was forced onto subject peoples. Islamicism is not something separate from the mainstream of the religion, it is the political expression of the religion. Once again remember what Dave wrote, 'Neither Washington nor mosque'. For those among us who do not recognise it, this is echolalic of the old IS slogan, 'Neither Washington nor Moscow' and I for one think it is very clever.

SPP - It's based on previous conversations we've had on the subject in the past and no I don't keep copies of everything you have ever written (though I have heard that you do) so perhaps you can look in your archives and enlighten me.

AN - No need to unpack - go look at the debate taking place with SWPers on Shiraz and you'll see exactly what I am talking about.

'Red Deathy'

As I keep saying there isn't a Palestine etc situation here. Any developed situation (in the UK or elsewhere) may well include armed struggle, if and when it does then many socialists will get involved.

"Southpawpunch thinks he too would have joined the Waffen SS and fought for a Nazi victory" - !!
Like, what the hell? There are baseless slurs and there's deranged random keyboard poking - that's the latter.

TWP, how convenient for you (and no I don't keep copies of everything I've ever written). I have never, ever supported the destruction of the Twin Towers and nothing ever said between us is of that nature.

And all our conversations have either been here, on Shiraz or one conversation about a millionaire musician with good PR on your blog. I don't think 9/11 ever arose in any of them.

I'll tell you what, I'll give £100 via Paypal (with copy to you) to charity of your choice if you find such (impossible) v a apology from you for your slur here.

Ok SSP - How about you donate it to my favourite charity:

GO FUCK YOURSELF

Thanks

Sorry sorry - that should read:

Ok SPP - then

GO FUCK YOURSELF

I have to use good grammar on these things or face official reprimand...

I take that as 'no I can't and I was just making it up.'

Anyway these threads generate more heat than light with ritualised abuse between a small cast probably repeating what they said the last time.

It would be good if there was a way to actually get constructive discussion but maybe not with the players involved (and yes, that includes me for some of the above). So I bail out here

Southpaw

It is conventient for you to bail out here, but just becaasue you don't answer doesn't mean that other people don't read what is written and draw their own conclusions.

Perhaps peoplee might conclude that you are not engagaing with the argument about you support for Hitler loving Bose becasue you have got yourself in deep water.

Let us run through it one more time.

i) did you say it was legimimate and even necessary to ally with fascists in the interests of "anti-imperialist" struggle?
ii) was the context of your comments the second world war?
iii) was the person you specifically praised for doing that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose?
iv) did Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose meet with HItler, and was the primary strategy of Bose to help Germany win the war in Europe?
v) was Bose's subsequent strategy of raising an Indian army armed by Japan to fight in India only a fall back position after his preferred option of German victory in Europe was taking too long?
vi) did Bose raise Indian troops who saw active service in France and fought in the Waffen SS under Nazi command?
vii) did the nazis during the time of Bose's active military colaboratuon with them carry out mass exterminations of jews - actually in the theatre where his Indian troops were deployed in SS uniforms?
viii) did you praise and identify with Bose for his willingness to make alliance with fascists?

You have identified yourself with Bose and his Indian troops using the term "we", you have said that they had a "need to" make an alliance with fascism. You have clarified that this is only "if necessary"

But as I have shown above it was a lot more plausible for Bose to believe that a nazi conquest of Britain would bring independence (An independent India was a specific German war aim from 1942 onwards) than it was likely that a token INA military force invading India would make any difference. So using the "if necessary" argument, then if Indian independence is the trump card then surely you do support Bose's strategy of fighting for the Third Reich? Surely actively fighting against Britain in Europe better fits the "if necessary" criterion than the futile military action in India?

Now here is an interesting point raised by Sue R. The logic of your position is to support Indians joining the Waffen SS, but you wouldn't do so yourself? Why not?

Either becasue

i) you original argument that it is OK to fight alongside facsists is completely wrong, beacsue it leads you to the stupid conclusion that the socialists should consider joining the Waffen SS.
or..
ii) you don't mind poor Indians, Iraqis, Irish, Columbians or whoever dying, but you have a PR job and comfortable metropolitan lifestyle to worry about

Which is it?

I don't think "because I agree with their cause more" is a sufficient reasons to accept people being blown up, shot or whatever.

Neither do I - as I said, I've never supported the IRA (even back when I was a Red Action sympathiser). My point was that there are often better and more constructive things to say than "we denounce the crazy murdering bastards who carried out this atrocity" - even when an atrocity has been carried out by crazy murdering bastards.

Try this: Martin Sullivan hits the nail on the head.

Yes Ian

that is a very good summary by Martin Sullivan

Wow so Dave is now 'Islamaphobic', but why stop there? For real impact I think you need to add neo-con, racist, zionist, imperialist, fascistic, Stalinist, zionist war-monger.

Actually, if Ian's previous comments are anything to go by, he probably will.

Phil,

You were a Red Action sympathiser?! From reading your intelligent, thought-provoking arguments on your blog I would have thought you were the last person to align themselves with the 'everyone hates us and we don't care'* brigade.

Ever go on one of their trips to Belfast with them?

*Once a headline on their paper I believe.

would have thought you were the last person to align themselves with the 'everyone hates us and we don't care' brigade.

Well, I only bought Red Action for the articles... If you ignored the weird Provo-tailing, RA were solid class-struggle Marxists with a very persuasive critique of the Leninist Left (it persuaded me, anyway). Good anti-fascists too, of course.

Dave, if in upholding enlightenment values (as all Marxists must), you upset the relativists like the disgusting Bob pitt of Islamophobia Watch, and the wretched ex-Marxist ian donovan, then you're doing a good job. Keep it up, comrade!

632c5r09ow8

ftssoldier.blogspot.com
www.edwardsaid.org

Speaking of reducing support for Qa’eda, has anyone though of a workable plan to withdraw from
Iraq? An independent Iraq would be an alterative
model to Iranian and Saudi Arabia influence in the
middle east because its different sects would make it
impossible for it to become a single party clerics state.

Its worth knowing that the biggest losers of
Osama Bin Laden actives caused by worthless
Ideology are Arab/Muslims. There would be absolutely no occupation of Iraq, if
Osama Bin Laden did not order the bombing of the World Trade center. If it had not happened bush would have properly maintained the same policy as
Clinton and constrained on regime change in the from of a Military Coup. Plus the fact Al Qaedas Bombings of civilian targets only strengthens the Military occupation by sowing sectarian hatred between Sunni/Shi'a and in the process killing
More Iraqis than the U.S. Military. Thus the result being that the Iraqi resistance has no
choice but to turn against them. It worth knowing that Al Qaedas consists of 10% of the
overall Iraqi resistance and its is alleged that 75% the suicide bombers came from Saudi Arabia but I don’t know the full facts or details.

How much real support does Al Qaedas enjoy in the Arab/Muslim world? I would say not very much because of the recent anti-terrorist demonstrations in Yemen and Algeria.

Lets also not forget the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the idiotic campaign against the Danish cartoons were the greatest boast for the anti-Muslim prejudge.( BNP e.t.c.)

"Islamophobia Watch" really is a load of shite isn't it? That article's just further proof of why. If authors spent more time actually fighting racists rather than misrepresenting anti-racists like Dave, then their lives might acquire some meaning. Until then they're just a bunch of wankers with a crap website.

If Jim Denham's "enlightenment values" involves calling on the state to infiltrate and smash "Islamist networks", as Dave does in this piece, then that just goes to show the extent to which Denham has thrown in his lot with the racist ideology of Western imperialism.
Why not go the full way and become police informers... all in the cause of "enlightenment values" of course.

Well done to Islamophobia Watch.

Unfortunately Dave's right wing turn is the inevitable result of dropping socialist politics to embrace social democracy. Instantly one sees the capitalist state as part of the solution instead of part of the problem in matters such as these, and it is only one more step to the right to embrace Gordon Brown and his racist and nationalist 'British Jobs for British Workers' rhetoric - a rhetoric grimly reminiscent of the far-right. Forward to 'National Socialism' under Brown*, eh Dave?

*People please don't interpret this as a suggestion that I think think Brown actually is a fascist - I am not in the mood.

Dave's post was entirely correct. From a Marxist standpoint we neither stand with the imperialists nor with the fascists - opps, sorry, Islamicists (okay, I know the difference but they are equal in their hatred and murder of all that is progressive).

I personally would not shed a tear if the imperialists destroy any Islamicists. I would shed a tear if any ordinary people were involved in which is essentially a war between rival systems of oppression.

But then Eddie, le sanglot de l'homme blanc (check yer references here) seems to be reserved for the kind of racists Islamophobia Watch supports.

"My point was that there are often better and more constructive things to say than "we denounce the crazy murdering bastards who carried out this atrocity" - even when an atrocity has been carried out by crazy murdering bastards."

The problem is that this perspective only seems to get applied to terrorists that are "useful" in some way to the Left. The IRA and the UVF are drawn from the same sort of background, yet the Left seems willing only "understand" republican violence, not loyalist killings. And as I said that Peter Taylor book loyalists slayed a few sacred cows for me, notably the Red Action style myth that the loyalist working class was in a substantially better position than their nationalist counterparts.

Secondly, should we understand that bloke who set of bombs in Brick Lane and Brixton as a misguided but "understandable" reaction to immigratrion? Afterall the far-right seem to represent the views of quite a lot of British people if the BNP's votes are anythingh to go by. so surely those bombs need to be understood just like those planted by the IRA/UVF/7 July bombers etc.

It's a very dangerous game sticking up for terrorism.

I had a look at Islamphobiawatch and I noticed that there is a long copyright warning on the page, in fact it takes up a quarter of the screen. I think that tells you all you need to know about Islamophobiawatch.

Incidentally, I feel I ought to clarigy my views on Islamacism or political Islam. Although violence is inherent in any exclusive creed, I think the manifestation we are currently witnessing is because the Muslim Middle East is unable to deal with the modern world. Through immigration and civil wars and general decay in their own countries they are coming more into contact with the non-Muslim world. Obviously, this is not a good thing for Muslim clerics and organisations. They see the example of the other religions and how they have weakened their hold over their adherents and the Muslim hierarchy (or some of them) have to despretely retain a hold over their followers. They do this by isolating them. They don't want to integrate because integration would spell the end of their way of life. Recently it was reported that more Jews are marrying non-Jews and the Jewish way of life becomes more assimilated with each generation. This is the fate that the Muslims want to avoid. Trouble is that the global village is a rather different proposition to the dusty plains of Arabia or the grassy mountains of the Hindu Kush. I would have a lot more respect for Muslim politics if they actually did constructive things for people. For example, if Hamas are going to fire rockets from among the civilian populations, should they not make sure that children and teenagers are provided with somewhere else to play, so that they do not get blasted when the Israelis return fire? It's the little things like that which worry me.

Back to Southpaw punch.

Remember that he specifically praised the Indian nationalist Bose for making alliances with facsists in the fight against british imperialism.

This is the oath that Chandra Bose's men swore when they were inducted into the German army:

"I swear by God this holy oath that I will obey the leader of the German race and state, Adolf Hitler, as the commander of the German armed forces in the fight for India, whose leader is Subhas Chandra Bose."

It is perhaps worth quoting French resistance fighter, Henri Gendreaux, about what SouthPawpunch's friends did in his home town of Ruffec. "I do remember several cases of rape. A lady and her two daughters were raped and in another case they even shot dead a little two-year-old girl."

I again ask, if a "socialist" identifies with these people as "we" annd thinks that they had a "need to" do this, then what is their underlying politics?

'For they sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind'

Dave - I hope you enjoy reaping the whirlwind of racist bullshit you have just gone and sown....

Sue R

Your take on Islam is wildly inaccurate.

Islamic society has not been confined to the "dusty plains of Arabia or the grassy mountains of the Hindu Kush". During the middle ages the Islamic world with the three great Caliphates of Cairo, Baghdad and Cordoba was vastly in advance of Western Europe in terms of philosophy, art, mathermatics, medicine and philosophy.

What is more the islamic world was much more tolerant, for example the Jews of Spain were given sanctury in the Muslim world after they were expelled by the inquisition. Indeed coexistence between the different religions was sometimes problematic but generally practiced in tradiational islamic societies - (with the exception of those people who they regard as having renounced islam.)

You also seem to lump all muslims and all islamists together, but would it be fair to lump together the Rev Jesse Jackson and the Rev Ian Paisley?

Andrew Coates: "I personally would not shed a tear if the imperialists destroy any Islamicists."

Lets us look at this linguistic shift.

Dave starts talking about terrorists, but in his haste to be "witty" includes a title that implies that terrorism is linked to mosques.

Having opened the racist door, implying a link between all mosques and terrorism, then Andrew Coates gingerly steps through it by confusing "islamism" with "jihadism"..

"Islamism" is a generic term for all politicians whose political view is informed by islam. It therefore includes a range of opinion including, for example, Malcolm X.

What seem to be missing here is any understanding that there is a wide range of opinion and debate among and between Muslims, and while Islam does contain reactionary ideological aspects, so does Christinaity, Judaism and all the other religions. Islam also contains progressive ideological aspects, if those are the ones that you wish to stress - for example a formal recognition of the equality of women, opposition to racism and belief in a duty of charity and community responsibility.

if we accpet without challenge that we side with imperialism and don't shed a tear while they destroy "any islamists" then we are not even just endorsing the "war on terror" (that would be bad enough, we are buying into the whole clash of civilisations bollocks, and the views promoted by Sue R, that Islamic society is somehow more backward than the west.

Meanwhile a two Christian churches in Taunton ban a Toddler yoga group from using their public hall, because yoga is the work of the devil. These are the superior advanced view of the west?

So...criticising Islam is opening the racist door is it? Funny, last time I checked the enlightened Left was fairly secular in nature and had the courage to expose religious belief systems as the inherently conservative social forces they are.

I didn't realise that Dave's heading was equating Islam with terrorism. Silly me, I just thought he was saying that there is a thrid way between the rapcious, world despoiling greed of imperialism and the perfect peace of Islam. I didn't relise that merely mentioning a mosque laid one open to a charge of calling all Muslims 'terrorists'.

Perhaps the Muslim organisations need to get someone else to do their publicity, because they are not getting a positive picture of Islam out to the general population. I mean, who would think that women in girls in Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudia, Indonesia etc etc have full equality with men? It doesn't come over on the television at all.

Nasty Christians refusing to allow an infants yoga group. Nothing like that would ever happen in the Muslim world would it? Probably becaue they don't actually have toddler groups there. But even if they did, everyone knows how much divergent beliefs are respected in the Islamic world. Just like those three Christian school girls who were beheaded in Indonesia on their way to school last year. And then, the perpentrators were acquitted. Oh, yeas. Islam the religion of perfect peace. Did yo see President Ahmadejenad of Iran on the television yesterday? He couldn't stop stressing what a peaceful religion Islam is. And how Iran and Iraq were best buddies and had been for centuries. The bloody and pointless Iran-Iraq War of teh 1990's seemed to have slipped his memory completely.

Snowball.
you're in an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood so I realise you shouldn't be taken too seriously.
It may be a help if you dealt with the racist terrorist envoy Azzam Tamimi before lecturing anyone else.

Sue R is brilliant, you couldn't get a better example of someone trapped in the mindset of colonialism.
"Trouble is that the global village is a rather different proposition to the dusty plains of Arabia or the grassy mountains of the Hindu Kush."
Bloody Muslims, they just won't trade in their camels for an automobile.
I suggest a crusade is in order to bring these fuzzy wuzzies kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Better still, send in the tactical airstrikes, that'll knock some sense into them.

"Dave starts talking about terrorists, but in his haste to be "witty" includes a title that implies that terrorism is linked to mosques."

Whether Dave's title of the post is in bad taste (I don't think it is btw)I do think it is a tad hypocritical considering what passes for "humour" from Comrade Newman.

Think the comrade doth protests too much.

Louise

You and I have a difference over the question of whether humour is autonomous from humour. That debate is continuing to run on the SU blog, I see no value in you trying to escalate a flame war by bringing it over here as well.

Sue

I have been to Moslim toddler groups in Britain and palestine. To beleive that Muslims don't have toddler groups is a level of fattuosnesss worthy of Stings "do the russians love their children too"

The point you cannot seem to understand is that Islam is not homogenous. There is clearly a contradiction between the teachings of the Koran over the formal equality of women, and the actual oppression of women in islamic culture.

there are progressive aspects of Islamic ideology that could be drawn upon. For example malcolm X.

There are also contradictions in Christian culture. You can talk about Indonesia, but we could also mention protestant death squads in the six counties.

Loiuse

Incidently

As you have brought the subject over here, I will respond.

I did not say that dave's title wasnt funny (it is quite funny)

I said that it conflated Mosques with terrorism.

That is I made a criticism of the politics not the humour.

You seem unable to understand that these are seperate questions.

Becasue

Obvioulsy this should not read: "You and I have a difference over the question of whether humour is autonomous from humour."

but

"You and I have a difference over the question of whether humour is autonomous from politics."

"we could also mention protestant death squads in the six counties."

and we could mention catholic death squads in the six counties too.

Yes, the racist door is well and truly open. This article is about terrorism, and calls for 'the left' to 'equally' distance themselves from the camp of the 'terrorists' as they supposedly do from the 'camp' of the imperialists. The camp of imperialism being designated 'Washington', the camp of 'terrorism' as 'Mosque'. Therefore 'Mosque[s]' in general are associated with 'terrorism'. I suppose Dave thought he was being clever given the similar pronuncation with 'Neither Washington nor Moscow', but if ever there was a damaging freudian slip, this is it.

This makes no distinction between different Mosques. 'Mosque', in general, is used as a synonymn for 'the camp of the terrorists'. Ordinary Muslims, who attend Mosques, then are implicitly declared part of the 'camp of the terrorists'.

This is a libel against the vast majority of Muslims and their Mosques, and the fact that the usual queue of phoney lefts predictably defend every jot and tittle of this formulation simply illustrates how whole sections of the left, confronted with *new* problems heralded by 9/11 and the 'war against terror', have been poisoned by a new form of racist bigotry - anti-Muslim racism or Islamophobia.

Actually, the whole concept of seeking a 'third camp' between imperialism and the camp of the terrorists is a load of nonsense in any case. There is no 'camp of the terrorists' comparable with the Stalinist regimes in the cold war.

Al Qaeda is a pathological remnant of the Cold War that was then in the imperialist 'camp'. It is capable of pin-prick attacks against the West that may occasionally and indefensibly cause quite large civilian casualties (though quite small compared to the number killed by the imperialists and their allies, such as Israel). But it is a marginal, essentially maverick force that feebly attempts to exploit much larger issues in which it is hardly a player. Those being the resistance of large number of people in the lands where the largest oil reserves lie, who tend to be more of the Islamic faith than not, to the conquest and domination of their polities by the Western powers.

Al Qaeda is not a 'camp', it is a fringe player in these issues that acts as a parasite on them. It is overshadowed by much larger movements that share much of its political-religious ideology, but not its generalised and absurd terrorist 'war' against the west in general. Many armed-struggle Islamists utterly reject Al Qaeda and its generalised anti-Western jihad. The likes of Hamas and Hizbullah, for instance, also wage a kind of armed jihad, but of a much more limited kind with essentially nationalist aims- i.e. the liberation of particular defined territories from colonial domination.

It is thus utterly absurd to dignify bin Laden as in some way the leader of a 'camp'. He only represents a tiny minority of even those radicalised Muslims who see their religion as an ideological weapon of resistance to imperialist domination. But this equation of bin Laden with 'the camp of the Mosque' is no accident - for the subtext of this kind of nonsense is that the enemy 'camp' is not limited to the likes of bin Laden, but extends to all politicised Muslims who are resisting imperialist domination.

Socialists should actually have no problem in condemning acts of bin Laden's supporters that deliberately target either Western or other (Shi'a etc) civilians. Indeed we should doubly condemn them as compared to indiscriminate acts by genuine nationalist movements that also sometimes indefensibly attack civilians (such as IRA, or Tamil Tiger, or for that matter Hamas bombings of civilians), but at least are linked to a rational struggle for defined nationalist aims. While maintaining a firm and generalised support for armed resistance by Palestinians, Lebanese Shia, Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a, Somalis, Afghans and others under imperialist, Zionist or other imperialist-allied domination, irrespective of their being led by more mainstream Islamist movements like Hamas or Hizbullah, etc.

The attempt to create a third camp between the masses resisting imperialism in the Middle East, and the imperialists themselves, using bin Laden as a judas goat, puts those who do effectively in the imperialist camp themselves. If we can support crackdowns on 'Islamists networks', does this also mean supporters of Hamas and Hizbullah? Logically it does, and that is a absolute disgrace given the democratic mandates these movements have secured among oppressed peoples.

This poisonous seepage into the left has to be defeated, and this in current circumstances this is the overriding issue of principle that stands in the way of left unity. There can be no unity with 'left' Islamophobes, who are by their echoing of imperialism's war propaganda against Muslims, part of the camp of imperialism.

Ian Donovan wrote:

as compared to indiscriminate acts by genuine nationalist movements that also sometimes indefensibly attack civilians (such as IRA, or Tamil Tiger, or for that matter Hamas bombings of civilians), but at least are linked to a rational struggle for defined nationalist aims.

so essentially you accept that attacks on civilians can be justified for political purposes?

eg. a bomb in Pub, or a suicide attack on a street market

what intrinsic difference is there between that position, and that of Henry Kissinger, where the mass murder of civilians is acceptable if the political ends are achieved?

what's the difference, really?

"a new form of racist bigotry - anti-Muslim racism or Islamophobia."

So do you think any leftist who criticises Islam is motivated by some sort of deep-rooted racist prejudice? That if you point out that Islam, like all religions, is a bit silly and shouldn't be encouraged as a form of ideological identity (i.e. applying the same arguments that the secular left levels at other religions) you are somehow being racist? Picking on Muslims because they tend to be a bit brown? (Simplistic, I know, but so is the crude assertion that anti-Islam automatically equals racism).

I don't see why you have to pick sides in these conflicts. I want the Palestinian people to have an improved quality of life in a nation-state that they can call their own. Does this mean I necessarily have to support crazed religious zealots who think suicide-bombers attacking Israeli civilians are martyrs who are blessed with howevermany virgins in the afterlife? Can I not be anti-imperialist and anti-Islamist? You pledge these people "firm and general support"...that seems like 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thinking which is, frankly, moronic.

If old Karl Marx were alive today surely he would stand by his view that religion is the opium of the people. Would you attack him as a racist Islamophobe?

How should we condemn al queda linked Islamist organisations with predominantly nationalist aims.
Answer.
more than al queda linked organisations with pan Islamic aims which target Jews but predominantly kill muslims.

Love the obvious mendacity of modernity's subsitution of my word (indefensibly) with his word (justified). How does 'indefensibly' become elided into 'justified'? Why do bigots become illiterate when confronted with an argument they can't answer?

Proving that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, 'Shocked' writes;
"If old Karl Marx were alive today surely he would stand by his view that religion is the opium of the people. Would you attack him as a racist Islamophobe?"
This is a favourite of the militant atheist fools who seem to make up a significant section of the left in the UK.
The full quote from Marx is;
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
If socialists start from a position of saying to religious people that, basically, you are being duped and are therefore stupid, it's not really going to enable us to engage with them is it ?
I suggest you read Paul N Siegel's excellent book 'The Meek & the Militant' in order to grasp the basics of how socialists and Marxists relate to religion.
I have suggested this to Dave in the past but he clearly didn't take my advice.

Tom P

Enlighten me - which catholic death squads operated in the six counties?

I am aware of nationalist republicans conducting an armed struggle. Most of those republicans may indeed have come from catholic backgrounds, but their political cause was republicanism.

I am not aware of any armed group that specifically comprised Catholics with the intention of killing non-catholics.

I am however aware of murderous protestant bigots who murdered catholics just becasue they were catholics (trick or treat)

Like, durr, Eddie. I manage to get along fine with religious comrades thank-you very much, even though we have radically different belief-systems. The only thing militant about atheists like myself is our determination not to compromise secularism for the sake of getting cosy with one particular religion which happens to have a large number of its practiceners fighting wars against Western powers. Fine, people suffering for whatever reason are turning to religion. I can understand that. But the question for socialists should surely be: how do we secularise these societies and concentrate efforts on progressive politics rather than allowing the Bible or the Koran or whatever to dominate political discourse.

Ian Donovan,

if I have misinterpreted your meaning then I apologise

please can you clarify your view on the conscious murder of civilians for political purposes, as it is pertinent to the wider debate

1. under what circumstances do you think attacks on civilians, in pubs or street markets are acceptable?

2. or are they unacceptable under any circumstances?

which is it?

3. or are deliberate attacks on civilians somehow more acceptable, if you agree with the perpetrator's motives?

"Enlighten me - which catholic death squads operated in the six counties?"

No problem. Try Googling the Catholic Reaction Force. Or have a look for the story of the Kingsmill massacre.

PS - wot Shocked said.

No gods no masters

Shocked

I would strongly recommend that you read the transcripts of the "Congress of the Peoples of the East" which took place in Baku in 1920. There was a good New park edition 1n 1977 that is a bit more complete than the Pathfinder edition.

The third session concerns itself explicitly with the question of whether it is the role of socialists to "secularise these societies".

It is not as if socialists have no experience of Islamic societies, and of working with Muslims.

It is intersting thay Karl Radek, speaking for the Comintern in 1920 described the exact position you are arguing as "West European Kulturtraeger, the West European brigands carrying out Red imperialism".

Now the harsh tone of Radek is because one of the earliest acts of Lenin's government was to pledge to the peoples of the East that they would be free to pursue their own customs, and follow their own religion.

This policy was behind the extraordinary success of General Frunze of the Red Army in the bashmatchis war in 1920, when socialist government was established right across Turkmenistan. This was despite the fact that 60% of Frunze's army was russian.

The russians were only engaged in the fighting. The pacificatioon and organisation afterwards was i the hands of local Muslims, mostly through joinimg the CP. Those who advocated that only non-Muslims could hold position in the Turkestan Communist party were expelled in 1920 and all positions in the CP opened to Muslims.

It is true that this policy of Lenin began to be reversed from 1923 onwards by Stalin who believed that "the question for socialists should surely be in your words: "how do we secularise these societies and concentrate efforts on progressive politics rather than allowing the Bible or the Koran or whatever to dominate political discourse."

In 1928 Sultan Galiev becasme the first Muslim leader to be murdered by Stalin, but later all of the Muslim leaders were killed except nariminov who dies in his sleep.

It must be reassuring for you that your position has such a long history in our movement?

Modernity

"if I have misinterpreted your meaning then I apologise"

Apology not accepted. Not a 'misinterpretation', but an outright lie.

"under what circumstances do you think attacks on civilians, in pubs or street markets are acceptable?"

Under no circumstances. As my original posting made very clear in using the word 'indefensible' about all such attacks. The suggestion otherwise is a conscious lie from a conscious liar.

Ian Donovan wrote:

Apology not accepted. Not a 'misinterpretation', but an outright lie

well, I don't suppose that the idea of bad eye sight has entered your elitist cranium?

or the fact that many disabled people use the Web?

ponder that for a moment...

and now fuck off, you nauseating little toerag

It is indeed reassuring to me Andy! As my postings will testify, I don't believe Muslims should be allowed to join socialist parties and I am a firm supporter of Comrade Stalin's efforts to impose secular uniformity on the revolution.

Jeez! Is it possible to advocate any sort of position around here without being accused of advocating the death of somebody, somewhere?!

"...bad eye sight..."

"or the fact that many disabled people use the Web?"

Now I've really heard everything! A Harry's Place propagandist, caught red-handed making libellous accusations to the extent that he has no escape, puts it down to bad eyesight!!!!!

Are all the rest of the lies on HP Sauce down to bad eyesight as well?

what Ian mean is that attacks on Jewish civilians in the Middle East shouldn't be condemned as much as attacks on Shia Muslims.

Speaking as a colonialist. of course Muslims should have the right to join and participate in a communist party, but it should be on a communist programme, not an Islamic one. Didn't Engles write in 'The Origin of the Family' that it was a choice between socialism or barbarism? I know which side I'm on.

I repeat, perhaps the Islamic societies need to engage a high powered PR agency in the West to get over what marvellous places they are. Paradisical, or some such word. I'm really going to upset you now but I suspect if your friend has helped out at Palestinian toddler groups, then they must have been funded by the UN or some such body. If, in a country like Britain where a high percentage of women work and people are relatively more prosperous there is a shortage of childcare, then how can a struggling country like Palestine afford them? What's the basic rate of income tax in Palestine? And, what percentage of the working poulation pay it. When the UN's paying you can have anything you like.

Ian Donovan wrote:

Now I've really heard everything!

indeed you have, and given your history I would suspect that few people ever give you the benefit of the doubt,

but I don't want it from you, either.

I really couldn't give a damn what some serial sectarian and crank, such as yourself, thinks.

your attitude problems, ably demonstrated here numerous times, and strange pathology gives the Left a bad name.

I wish you'd return to being a Tory.

I will, however, try to turn the volume up on my screen reader next time, and make sure that I don't bother engaging you in anything remotely approaching a civilised or political conversation.

OK everybody. Please take five and then get back on topic.

Shocked

Sorry - I apologise.

The point I was trying to make was that there actualy have been socialist governments of predominanatly Muslim lands, and they found it better not to promote secularism.

I shouldn't have gone on to make the unfounded amalgamation between you and Stalin.

Stalin did in fact argue a similar position to you in th abstract, but there is no reasn whatsoever to associate wat you have argued with the methods he used.

I think you are right though there is something about discussion on this blog lately that encourage polarisation to extreme positions!

eddie truman,

you made an interesting point, but perhaps you would care to summarise how socialists in Scotland have related to religious influences there in the past 60 or so years??

and I'm thinking of how those traditional religious divides entered and manifested themselves in the political sphere

Sue

I don't only know one Muslim. I mentined earlier a friend who has taken to wearing the hijab and I explained her reasons. NOt mine. I have no religious faith. She is someone I know through my boy's school.

I did not say that she was connected to a toddler group here or in palestine.

In palestine there is actually a highly developed civil society. or rather there are several parallel civil societies, as for example each political and religious current seems to try to run all their own parallel institutions

But it is me who has witnessed the toddler groups there not my friend.

Actually funding is desperatley short in palestine, so it is absurd to say "they can have anything they want". In fact there is a despertae collapse of living standards - you should go there and see for yourself.

How they organise the toddlers is that the mums do it among themselves.

I find it amazing that you think that Muslim women would only cooperate with each other for childcare if the UN was funding it.

I agree with Andy Newman and Ian Donovan on the title and its logical implications. It should've been 'Neither Washington Nor Al Qaeda' or something similar, but that obviously doesn't sound as good as far as witty puns go (i.e. 'Neither Washington Nor Moscow').

I wouldn't read too much into it, though - not in this context. It's a throwaway line that backfired.

Nor am I surprised that Andy and Ian's calm, reasonable and articulate objections to Islamophobic connotations have been met with the usual mixture of dismissal and outright abuse by certain people.

I share common ground with Dave in the respect that I'm tired of this mutual binary: just as I find it depressing that elements of the left are willing to forgo socialist politics at the behest of petit bourgeois businessmen from within the so-called "Muslims community", so I'm equally depressed that other elements are apparently willing to condone the latest and most virulent form of racism in society - i.e. anti-Muslim racism - by adopting a childish and misguided "Fuck religion!" posture under the guise of some commitment to reason, rationality and the secular Enlightenment project.

I also think this accusation is pushing it:

by regarding al Qa’eda as somehow allies of convenience in an imagined common anti-imperialist struggle

Have any of the main players on the radical Left actually adopted that position, or has it just been stuck in there to appease the so-called "Decent Left" readers of this blog who seem to think we all support al-Qa'eda?

Tom - I really don't feel qualified to pronounce on what "the Left" has and hasn't said.

My argument for not denouncing IRA atrocities - or, more to the point, not demanding that other leftists denounce them - was simply that IRA activity was parasitical on much broader and more deep-seated grievances, meaning that addressing those grievances was the most effective way of creating a situation in which the IRA ceased to exist.

Yes, this argument could be applied to Loyalist or neo-fascist violence: there are lots of people out there who have deep-seated grudges which I don't endorse. But this doesn't make as much difference as you seem to think it does. The most effective way of dealing with Loyalist or neo-fascist violence is still to deprive it of support. This doesn't mean making concessions to those people or their supporters; it does mean taking them seriously, as a group with legitimate aspirations who are currently seriously disaffected. Red Action, ironically, understood this a lot better than the SWP.

"so I'm equally depressed that other elements are apparently willing to condone the latest and most virulent form of racism in society - i.e. anti-Muslim racism - by adopting a childish and misguided "Fuck religion!" posture under the guise of some commitment to reason, rationality and the secular Enlightenment project."

Others here may have shown a slightly unsophisticated anti-Muslim prejudice (I'm looking at you, Sue), but I get nauseauted by certain 'leftists' who seem to think that any criticism of Islam can be dismissed as "racism".

Can we please be clear about this: There is NO Muslim race. So anti-Muslim racism does not exist.

I'm not an idiot - of course I realise reactionary nuts such as the BNP aren't standing up for secularism and enlightenment when they pick on Islam.

But some people here do not seem to accept that there is anything progressive or legitimate in secular socialists attacking the forces of political Islam and rejecting the idea that Islamist organisations should be favoured over capitalism and imperialism. Some of you seem to take "Islamophobia Watch" seriously.

It is fucking offensive to suggest that I condone any sort of racism just because I take issue with anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a sin, that animals need to be ritually slaughtered before being eaten, that women are ordained by the divine to dress 'modestly'. I disagree with anyone who holds these beliefs - whether they are white, brown, yellow.

I've never tried to claim that you "anti-Islamophobia" lot are supporters of Al Qaeda. Now will you kindly accept that a secular socialist critique of a religion is not inherently racist (or necessarily condoning of racism)?

"Shocked

Sorry - I apologise.

The point I was trying to make was that there actualy have been socialist governments of predominanatly Muslim lands, and they found it better not to promote secularism."

Apology accepted. This certainly is a heated argument on an important issue for the left...and it makes a change from the old pro-Labour anti-Labour arguments that usually dominate Dave's blog.

I guess it all boils down to whether you believe the building of a progressive socialist society is dependent upon the secularisation of the people.

Socialism - to me - is all about a common humanitarianism as well as rational and secular-based political theories. I'm instinctively convinced that the way forward for the human race requires less religion. I have many religious friends who are undoubtedly more left-wing than me, so I would never see that religion is incompatible with socialism (history indeed shows that religion has inspired some of the best socialists and radical figures). I just think strong religious identity is problematic for a socialist society and that progressives should not be encouraging any movement that seeks to nurture that sort of identity.

Bah humbug.

Surely we're all against faith schools?

modernityblog;
Taking the time to "summarise how socialists in Scotland have related to religious influences there in the past 60 or so years" would mean I was posting on this thread in months to come.
All I can offer that which is readily to hand.
Although not dealing broadly with how socialists in Scotland should deal with historical religious issues, the following piece does take up the question of education in Scotland, an issue that reflects attitudes towards religion that you elude to in your post.
This is a briefing note written jointly by Alan McCombes and myself in 2004 and reflects the methodology of a socialist approach to religion in Western Europe in the 21st century.

Eddie

SSP Research, Policy & Media Unit
Briefing Note: 25/01/04
Joint faith school campuses

By Alan McCombes & Eddie Truman

It is likely that at some point our MSP's and other public figures will be asked to comment on recent developments regarding joint faith school campuses and on the longer term issue of denominational and religious schooling.
This is an issue over which we must be ultra sensitive and understanding towards all positions and faiths involved in a situation which can easily become inflamed, as events reported in the media in relation to St David's school and Dalkeith High in Midlothian show.
If the Scottish Socialist Party was laying plans for a Scottish education system from scratch we would put in place a completely secular system within which there would be no place for religion other than as an academic topic for study.
But this is not the situation we face in Scotland at the beginning of the 21st Century.
Broadly speaking, we welcome moves to bring together denominational schools in Scotland on a voluntary basis, with the agreement of the pupils, parents and relevant school authorities.
If reports that the Catholic Church are considering the possibility of refusing to use seven primary school sites in Lanarkshire are true, we would urge them to reconsider as we believe joint campuses are a step along the way of eradicating sectarian divisions within Scotland's education system.
The SSP does, however, recognise that Catholic schools were originally set up because of the discrimination and persecution that Catholic children faced within the Protestant State system and that leaders of the Catholic community saw segregated schools as a means of over coming sectarianism.
History has shown, however, that segregated schools have had the opposite effect of increasing sectarian divisions in Scotland's communities.
The SSP is opposed, however, to enforced de-segregation in the form, for instance, of the closing down of Catholic schools against the wishes of the local community.
The SSP recognises that Scotland's State schools are not on the whole non-denominational, secular educational establishments.
They reflect, to one degree or another, the religion of the Scottish state, Calvinist Protestantism.
In many of Scotland's state schools, a weekly assembly is taken with religious elements conducted by a Church of Scotland minister, school holidays are focused exclusively around Christian holidays and in many schools the ideology of Protestant Christianity is actively promoted.
As long as this situation exists, parents who wish their children educated from a different religious or faith perspective must have the right to do so, subject to a statutory system of rights and standards for their children.
The SSP absolutely rejects any attempts to coerce those of a particular religion or faith to conform to regulations and laws which they feel discriminates against them because of their religious beliefs.
Events in France surrounding the ban on Muslim girls wearing the headscarf, the Hijab, in school are an object lesson in how not to deal with the issue of religion in the education system.
Far from moving the cause of secular education for our children on, bans and proscriptions on religious minorities always and forever plays into the hands of religious zealots of every flavour.
We would be careful to emphasis that we are equally in favour of Muslim women and girls having the right NOT TO cover themselves if that is what they wish.
As an aside, members of the SSP in local areas may well have other reasons for being involved in campaigns around new joint campus schools, for instance in the use of PFI / PPP schemes to build them using private money.
This was in fact the case in Midlothian were the building of the joint campus faced opposition on religious grounds from some parents but the local SSP branch was able to run a successful council by election campaign against PFI involvement in the school without becoming associated with those opposing the school on religious grounds.

thanks eddie, I thought this bit was to the point:

"History has shown, however, that segregated schools have had the opposite effect of increasing sectarian divisions in Scotland's communities."

Dave Osler is such a wind-up merchant. He knows that when he posts an entry about dull but worthy stuff like stock markets or MPs' business interests a few readers make some token polite noises.
But if he posts an entry about Respect/George Galloway or Islam and the left, the comments box explodes in a torrent of infuriated posters denouncing each other as "twats", "genocidaires" and "nauseating little toerags". Its as though someone has disturbed a hive of wasps ... and its f***ing fabulous!
So please, Dave, don't ask them to tone it down a bit, stay on topic or take time out, let them just slug it out.
In fact, give them some guest posts. Ian Donovan and Modernity blog, what a pair of stars. They bitch and snarl and just go on and on. Voltaire's Priest and Andy Newman would get to be the Greek chorus.
Why is everyone being so mean to Southpaw Punch, by the way?

modernityblog wrote;
thanks eddie, I thought this bit was to the point:
"History has shown, however, that segregated schools have had the opposite effect of increasing sectarian divisions in Scotland's communities."

No, the point is how do socialists in Scotland relate to the reality of working class Scots who are not from the dominant Calvinist Protestant tradition when it is that ideology that dominates the entire state apparatus.
Either the entire society has to be purged of all traces of religion or people have to be given the freedom to follow their own religious practices.
The central point being that the state school system is not secular, it is Protestant.

eddie wrote:

Either the entire society has to be purged of all traces of religion or people have to be given the freedom to follow their own religious practices.

that is a false dichotomy, and in particular why does it have to be an either/or situation for socialists?

I can't think of a single society outside of Albania which has "purged all traces of religion", and it would be foolish to think that such situation could occur, even under the vicious Stalinist dictatorships

should the State fund "faith" schools?

if people wish to continue some religious practice why does it necessarily have to penetrate into the public sphere?

surely if "faith" schools or similar are of such importance to the practitioners of religion then they can be funded from within that particular community?

eddie, do you feel that socialists should be encouraging (albeit at a slow pace) secularism within the public sphere?

or do you think that it should be divided up between the various competing religious groupings?

Shocked: don't take it personally. I agree with you that a secular socialist critique of a religion is not inherently racist (or necessarily condoning of racism).

I like to think it's possible to criticise Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism (etc.) without insulting, stereotyping or generalising their followers, or emphasising the negative elements of one -- particularly that of a structurally underprivelaged and discriminated against minority -- over the others.

But I often get the impression that a sense of awareness, tactfulness and respect is just too much to ask from certain quarters. The language, context and balances of power are vital: for example, who in their right mind would have launched a scathing attack against the Jewish faith, its followers, its institutions, its traditions, in the midst of an anti-Jewish pogrom?

Can we please be clear about this: There is NO Muslim race. So anti-Muslim racism does not exist.

A valid point, although not entirely true. "Race" as such doesn't exist: it's a scientific theory that has long since been discredited. Race is a socially constructed category, not a natural one. Muslims are just as much of a race as Jews or blacks or Asians -- or not as the case may be.

I think the parallels between anti-Muslim racism today and earlier forms of anti-Semitism are remarkable. It's now seen as acceptable to talk about Muslims in a way that it is no longer acceptable to talk about other minorities. The same process is at work with regard to asylum seekers: they've become an ethnicity in their own right, to be ridiculed and scapegoated in a way that is no longer acceptable when talking about specific groups (black, Asian, Jewish etc). But all the same myths, lies and stereotypes still apply. (Replace the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim" or "asylum seeker" in some press reports and you'll know what I mean.)

With anti-Muslim racism (as with anti-Semitism) what you have is a heterogeneous group of people (multinational as well as multicultural) lumped together into a static religious category and held accountable together on that basis alone. "The Enlightenment" was deployed just as cynically against Jews as it is today against Muslims. To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, the Jew stopped being merely a sinner and instead became a vice. Here was a category of people -- a "race" -- who were beyond reason, beyond rationality, beyond the social and cultural processes of modernity and the civilising Enlightment project.

modernityblog

You just don't seem to understand that when you write;
"if people wish to continue some religious practice why does it necessarily have to penetrate into the public sphere?" that as things stand in the UK the "public sphere" means judeo christianity, in Scotland Calvinist Protestantism.
These are not neutral, let alone secular, values.
This is the ideology of western imperialism.
To get back to the title of Dave's post, he would not have dreamed of drawing a direct line between the "church" and the murder of millions of innocent civilians by western imperialism but was happy to use the "mosque" as a symbol of terrorism.

Eddie;

Why don't you stop pretending that your site's Torquemada act on any socialist who criticises Islamic religion in general or Jihadi ideology in particular, is anything other than the product of people who don't have a fucking clue about either religion or political ideas? Given that your site praises me and denounces Denham for saying things that are not diametrically different (google it folks), I think "Islamophobia Watch" is a joke. "Cod anti-imperialism from some middle aged white guys" would be a better name.

DB - you speak much sense.

However, whilst race is obviously a socially constructed method of categorising human beings, I think it's obvious there is much more to distinguish Jewish, black, or 'Asian' (whilst of course being specific about what part of Asia) humans as part of a defined 'race'. Anyone can convert to Islam, whereas Judaism is stricter about these things, and it's hard for a white boy like me to become black overnight. (Cue predictable tired jokes about Michael Jackson). Also since Islam is well-established in populations across the world - from Bosnia to Indonesia - it would be surely pointless to try to insist that Islam can be seen as a race in any meaningful way. What's to stop you then insisting that Liberal Democrat party members constitute a race and that Lib Dem bashing could be a form of racism?

Anyway...I completely agree with you about being tactful. Obviously I'm not going to defend the vile right-wing press.

But what if respectfulness clashes with secular values? i.e. the Salman Rushdie affair. I have no qualms in saying that the book-burners were idiots.

Homophobia is a dominant cultural norm in modern Islam. Should we accept that? I say instead we support the miniscule number of Muslim gay rights activists (they do exist).

It is a very difficult balance.

eddie wrote:

These are not neutral, let alone secular, values. This is the ideology of western imperialism.

I am a bit surprised by your answer, I was hoping that you were going to give a fairly standard socialist reply (from years ago, mind you), along the lines of discouraging the imposition of religious views into the public sphere and the longer term aim of secularising society, when and wherever possible

I can only assume that from your lack of answer to this question:

"or do you think that it should be divided up between the various competing religious groupings?"

that it poses some difficulties for you?

do you think that it is advantageous for children to be largely indoctrinated into Catholicism at school?

I'll recant on dropping out inspired by Justine's post with which I agree (although I don't think everyone is being 'mean to me' save one person who strangely thinks I'm a secret Nazi sympathiser). I hope you will indulge me if I go off topic just briefly.

I think the above posts contain some very interesting points - on both sides. I think Eddie Truman, D.B. and even my old friend Modernity have made some good points. AN has also made some good points on Islam/Muslims.

But many (including some of the above, and possibly myself) have made the discussion hard to follow and unappetising with unnecessary abuse.

I'm not really bothered about the benefits accruing to the hardened (such as myself) from the above discussion but can you imagine if you say a school student or a worker first coming to Left politics read the above.

They would doubtless say that the stereotypes are true and the Left really does hate each other more than anyone else and even though views may be quite close (in the whole political spectrum) the writers think they are miles apart.

Most people will always just lurk at a blog (about 95% at mine) but I suspect that the percentage commenting here will be very low indeed - are some put off because they don't want their head bitten off because they may be new to left politics and don't feel very confident? Is that the way the Left should act?

I think left blogs can be useful e.g. Janine's reports on the TUC conference at Stroppyblog currently contain good information I'm never going to get in a newspaper; you can also have a useful discussion on an issue like say nanotechnology where people don't have a worked out line to follow but try and start a discussion about say Israel/Palestine and it degenerates very quickly. I think I recall Liam MacUaid saying something like this is a very Brit Left thing, it doesn't happen in France, for example (?).

Would Dave consider an open post sometime about how best to conduct debates? Is anyone else interested in this apart from me?

I'm afraid if things don't get corrected then it will end up like Harry's Place which is very hard to follow and full of silly and nasty point scoring – but, more importantly, also doesn’t help advance their politics an iota.

Sorry for my unsophistication, put it down to a female brain. I don't see why some of you are automatically assuming the use of the word 'mosque' is code for terrorism? What you are doing is not allowing an open and frank discussion about important political differences by using the terrorism of calling those who disagree with you 'racists'. As a point of information: what's the Koranic position on the ownership of the means of production? or equal pay? Where were these socialist Muslim states? If you mean Tunisia and Algeria, wouldn't it be more accurate to say they were anti-imperialist, and many of the social gains did not survive the death of the leaders of the Revolution. Ehat is the Koranic position on building a revolutionary party, by the way, and the self-activity of the working class? Do you agree that making apostasy a capital offence is not very progressive? and how does that sit with freedom of thought and speech? These are genuine questions. I would love my simplistic view to be educated.

Modernity

"I wish you'd return to being a Tory."

Any evidence I was ever a Tory? No, I thought not. Gonna put that lie down to 'bad eyesight'? LOL

Yet again this bufoon only harms himself with such obvious, pathetic, conscious porky-pies.

I agree with Southpaw!

Sue,

When were thee socialist Muslim states? Well it is a contradiction in terms, but there were socialists states that had a majority of Muslims, and where the socialists in charge were also mainly Muslims.

These existed throughout the Caucusus, Crimea and Soviet Central Asia after socialist rule was consolidated in 1920. Without checking I am not sure of the administrative boundaries, but there were socialist governments in Turkestan, Daghestan, and elsewhere. For the first six years these did not have Russian advisers and were run by socialists who were also Muslims (for example, Faizullah Khodjaev and Turar Ryskulov in Turkestan, Najmuddin Samurski and Mahac Dahadaev in the caucusus)

With regard to your question about the Koran and equal pay, there is specific provision in the Koran that women can own property in their own right. The KOran was after all written before wage labour was the norm.

Of course the Koran cannot address social issues that came up centuries after it was written. Howwever, as with any religions there are a lot of contradictory strands to it, some of them reactionary, some of them progressive. I personally am an atheist, bt it would be possible to construct a left leaning political philosophy based on islam.

Malcolm X !!! Note that it was only after malcolm broke with Elijah Mohammed's black nationalist Nation of Islam, and when he becasme a ore orthodox Sunni Muslim that he developed his good working relationship with the SWP(US) and started talking about socialism.

Southpaw Punch said: "Would Dave consider an open post sometime about how best to conduct debates?"

This is how you do it. Take a position - any position, doesn't really matter what - then furiously denounce your opponents. Just spray vituperative epithets at them at a very high velocity.

Either accuse them of being the miserable lackeys of war-mongering imperialists. Suggest they are in the pay of any of the following: Mossad, MI5, the CIA, or even better all three. Don't pause to take breath, call them fascists,

Or accuse them of prehistoric backwardness, fondness for dictatorship and suggest that their sex-lives are in such bad shape that they want women and gays stoned to death in public. Don't pause to take breath, call them Islamofascists.

Applicable to both: cast doubt on your opponent's paternity. Swear a lot.

Does any of this shed any light on serious questions about the direction of the left, multi-culturalism and human rights? Of course not. But does it pull the punters in? Absolutely. After all, we're still here, waiting for the next installment.

BTW, you're not really a nazi sympathiser are you? Nazis give me nightmares.

Andy Newman wrote:

I personally am an atheist, bt it would be possible to construct a left leaning political philosophy based on islam.

equally, you could say that of any religion

a left-wing Catholicism? revolutionary Calvinism? barricade Presbyterianism?

maybe even leftwing Satanism, but is that what socialists are reduced to ?

hunting and picking through religious texts to lift out the "lefty" and progressive bits, to give these religious movements a radical gloss?

PS: I hope Eddie gets back to us on the question of Catholicism and school indoctrination, I would welcome his perspective

Justine;

No idea who you are, but I like you already!

Cash thirsty spiv and Trots fall out.
What a shock.
http://socialistunity.com/

Sue seems to be going on the right track.

But Andy Newman's frankly hackneyed defence of Islamic history is utter bollokcs.

Since when did socialists defenend medieveal slave/military societies?

And also Andy, I suggest you learn a bit more about the history of the Slave states of the Middle East. Or history in general.

Where did this advanced culture come from? Er, the Greeks. And the Latin sages who transmitted it to the Europe. Name me any bit of the Qu'ran, which I would personally describe as a pile of cack, that was informed by this.

Aberlard and Heloise were talking about Greek culture too in the same period you cite. Some of the most deeply moving letters in the whole of world literature.

You perhaps may read with interest from an earlier date, The Consolation of Philosophy - translated in part into Old English by none other King Alfred. It contains the essence of Greek philsophy.

Avveros, as you must be dimly aware of, was persecuted by this tolerant Islamic civilisation.

So the whole of Europe was in the dark ages just waiting for some superior culture to invade.

Like hell.

"Since when did socialists defenend medieveal slave/military societies?"

"Where did this advanced culture come from? Er, the Greeks."

Since when did socialists 'defend' slave societies in antiquity, for that matter? Of course, it is not a matter of 'defending' any ruling class, but of recognising cultural acheivements of varying societies as part of the corpus of human achievement, and fighting against views of the world that privelege the currently dominant Western culture as the only one that made any significant contribution.

"Avveros, as you must be dimly aware of, was persecuted by this tolerant Islamic civilisation."

Indeed. He managed to escape the fate of Socrates, however, i.e execution.

Going with the spiv or staying with the SWP Ian?

It is of course perfectly possible to construct a left-wing Islam, but whree is it happening? Could not the dead weight of Islamic theocracy be preventing it? Sue, you mention socialist states but were these not on the back of the Bolshevik Revolution? I am surprised that you (Andy Newman) have not mentioned North Africa, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, which were the main anti-imperialist struggles of the 50s and 60s. You obviously know a lot about Islamic history, so could you please explain whether these were genuinely socialist or nationalist. I know that the Algerian government invited a Trotskyist to be in the government, but is there much trace of socialism left in the country?. I mean, what is there a National Health Service, or a completely unfettered educational system? What are the social services like? And how much is the income tax? or corporation tax? What are the main exports and who owns the wealth? Sorry for asking so many questions but I think it's important to know precisely the structure of these societies because otherwise we are just spouting opinion about long ago events.

Coatsie - you are losing the plot here ;o)

But let me first deal with Modernity's point.

he says that we could construct a progressive current out of any religion. Yes, of course we could that is my point exactly.

Sue R, and it seems Andrew Coates, are arguing that Islam is uniquely reactionary, and in Sue's case with an extraordinary level of condescension. My point is that Islam is not different and no more backward than other religions.

I am not saying that Islam is inherenrtly progressive or that islamic societies are inherently superior. Obvioulsy they are not.

But Sue's implication that Islamic society is mired in backwardness is insulting, ahistorical and untrue.

But for example in 1400 Cairo had a population of half a million and even had an eye hospital that carried out cataract operations. Algebra was invented, etc, etc. It is simply a fact that Islamic society was technically and culturally in advance of western Europe at this time.

Is it true that I am "defending" these societies? Well obvioulsy not firtsly they need no defending as they no longer exist, and secondly they were obviously exploitative and brutal class societies.

But were they backward compared to the west? Clearly not, so Sue R's comments about Muslims being so backwards that they couldn't even organise a toddler group without UN help are reveealed for the chauvinism they are.

Sue

I don't understand your point.

The reason I mention the fact that there had been socialist governments in Central Asia was merely to point out that we don't start with a blank sheet of paper. We can learn from the experience of the socialists who actually succeeded in establishing socialist government in these societies, and what their attitude was to winning over the population.

I am hardly an apologist for Islamism. The most recent and relevent example of a socialist government was Afghanistan, and it was western support for islamist terrorism that threw that country back into the dark ages.

Now the reason why the left is so utterly marginal in the Arab world is complex and I don't see how it relates directly to the question. I certainly don't see how it is relevent whether the anti-colonial movements in the 1960s were socialist or nationalist.

My view is that Nasserist pan-Arabism was progressive, but it was neither an islamist nor a socialist movement.

Sue R: "It is of course perfectly possible to construct a left-wing Islam, but whree is it happening?"

Ask Salma Yacoob. She is a consistently articulate voice for left wing politics.

I don't think that Palestinians don't organise toddler groups because they are incapable, I think the reason they don't do it is because it is not something that the men in those societies think is important. I'm tired of hearing all the bollocks about Arab poetry, algebra, astronomy etc. You know, a thousand million years ago, dinosaurs roamed the earth. They don't now. The past is just that. Dead and gone. Let's devote ourselves to the living. To the here and now. Never have I suggested or explicitly state that Islam is uniquely reactionary and violent. The point is surely that in other countries developments took place, socially and economically that cause religion to alter to modify to compromise. Islamic society has not modified to meet changing world conditions because ti has been i its own area of influence. Now, with mass immigration and ecological catastrophe etc etc there are more Muslims in Europe and they are coming into contact with other cultures and religions. They are being force to realistically confront the modern world. Terrorism is a response to that. Let's not forget in my opinion, that it is not aimed solely at non-Muslims but also at Muslims, to scare them away from any integration or assimilation. I asked about the modern Muslim world and you have failed to answer my questions. Just more bluster about there being eye hospitals in Cairo conducting operations. The Romans used to perform eye operations, if you go to the musuem on the Isle of Wight you can see the instruments they used. The Arabs inherited alot of the knowledge of the classical world, which was surpressed in Western Europe or fell out of use. The European medieval world's knowledge of the Ancient Greeks came via the Islamic world where it had been persreved. All credit to them for perserving it but they didn't invent or discover it.

You say Selma Yacoob is left-wing. Let's see what happens next time there's a miners' strike (or the contemporary)equivalent.

The role of the military in innovation is often overlooked. In the West, for example, the needs of warfare have been responsible for many advances in medical science and technology, either directly or indirectly. Teflon was developed due to the spacerace, which was ultimately about gaining a military advantage by controlling space, teh internet was originally a military tool, combat medicine can refine techniques that are then fed back into 'civilian' medicine. I don't think it's surprising that the Arabs valued medical knowledge or mathematics, because tehy were engaged on a series of conquests where their soldiers would need to be patched up. Europe at that time, following the breakup of the Roman Empire, was not in a position to start conquering anyone, it had fragmented into small kingdoms. Someone will tell me I am wrong, but can anyone think of a major battle fought in Europe during the 'Dark Ages'? I am not claiming that Europeans are inherently peaceloving, because we know they are not, I am just saying that what was advanced medical knowledge at that time was not necessary. The monestries did provide a 'hospital' service, but I don't think they ever performed surgery. It was mainly herbal medicine.

Sue - they do have toddler groups I have seen them with my own eyes.

I just wrote a long repsonse to you other points but lost it, and cannot be bothered to retype.

Consider this though.

Modern iraq under Saddam Hussein. Excellent health service, women in universities, senior government positions, and professional jobs, etc. Oil industry nationalised, and a process of national moodernistaioon was a key government aim. There was no terroism from the prediminantly muslim population, so terrorism is not resistence to modernity.

Consider Afghanistan. The islamist upringing of July 1975 failed utterley becuase of no support, and general acceptence of the legitimacy of Daoud's progressive government. there was no history of islamism in Afghanistan.

The problem with the socialist government from 1978 onwards were:

i) they were riven by factionalsim that makes th debate here seem friendly
ii) They prematurley launched a campiagn of secularisation, that was simply not understood in the countryside, but allowed the landlors thereatened by agrarian reform to wrap themsellves up in islamic garb.
iii) The Americans exploited this to introduce Wah'habism, and Bin ladin's Islamism.

So the tragedy of Afghanistan was insensitivity to Islam (a mistake the PFLA would not have made had they learned from the establishment soviet republics in Central Asia in the 1920s), and the delibertate introduction of islamist extremism by the Americans.

For info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Reaction_Force

andy newman wrote:

we could construct a progressive current out of any religion. Yes, of course we could that is my point exactly.

yes but you managed to ignore my main point (granted it was put in sarcastic language but still clear, if you read it slowly)

Andy, do you think it is the job of socialists to sanitize religions?

is that what it has come to?

bereft of their own intellectual independence, socialists now have to tail end religious movements and do PR for them?

Andy Newman wrote:

Teflon was developed due to the spacerace,

er, no it was NOT, that is a common misconception.

I think it was invented in the late 1930s/1940s, long before start of the space race.

ops, attributed that to the wrong person, sorry Andy

Sorry I was a victim of the Teflon industries own PR. Was Teflon invented in preparation for the 2nd World War then? The basic point is that war is one of the main driving forces of society. Sorry Andy Newman can't be bothered to answer most of my points. I expect he's got far more important things to do.

Sue R: "Sorry Andy Newman can't be bothered to answer most of my points. I expect he's got far more important things to do."

Well yeah, I have a full time job as an engineer that I should be doing right now.

I don't know what point I am supposed to be responding to, as you seem to have asked for a potted history of all islamic societies.

You have argues the semi-chauvinistic view that terrorism is becasue Muslims have come to the west and been exposed to more modern soiety.

I have disputed that arguing that a predominantly Muslim country, using the example of Iraq, did have substantial involvement with modern industrial society, and there was no terrorist repsonse to the modernisation of their society.

I think that addresses most of your points doesn't it?

I didn't know I was expected to respond to your GCSE history (grade D) point about warfare and technological innovation.

Modernity

It is not the job of socialists to sanitize religion.

But some of you seem to beleive it is OK for socialist to peddle chauvinistic falsities and half-truths about a major religion.

Here is a through expperiment for you. Go back through Sue R's posts and substitute Jew for Muslim, see how they read then.

I don't want to seem obsessed with accsuuing everyone of being a nazi, but let us see what happens, and perhaps it explains why I am sticking up for Islam! I have only changed Sue's word by substituting Jew for Muslim, and the geography to eastern Europe

around 1934 in Der Stuermer, or Der Beobachter, we might read

Incidentally, I feel I ought to clarigy my views on political Judeaism or zionism. Although violence is inherent in any exclusive creed, I think the manifestation we are currently witnessing is because the Jews of Eastern Europe are unable to deal with the modern world. Through immigration and civil wars and general decay in their own countries they are coming more into contact with the non-Jewish world. Obviously, this is not a good thing for Jewish clerics and organisations. They see the example of the other religions and how they have weakened their hold over their adherents and the Jewish(or some of them) have to despretely retain a hold over their followers. They do this by isolating them. They don't want to integrate because integration would spell the end of their way of life. Recently it was reported that more Jews are marrying non-Jews and the Jewish way of life becomes more assimilated with each generation. This is the fate that the Jews want to avoid. Trouble is that the global village is a rather different proposition to the dusty plains of the Ukraine or the grassy mountains of the Urals. I would have a lot more respect for Jewish politics if they actually did constructive things for people. It's the little things like that which worry me."

"Jewish society has not modified to meet changing world conditions because it has been in its own area of influence. Now, with mass immigration and ecological catastrophe etc etc there are more Jews in Europe and they are coming into contact with other cultures and religions. They are being force to realistically confront the modern world. Terrorism is a response to that. Let's not forget in my opinion, that it is not aimed solely at non-Jews but also at Jews, to scare them away from any integration or assimilation."

I repeat, perhaps the Jewish societies need to engage a high powered PR agency in Germany to get over what marvellous places they are. Paradisical, or some such word. I'm really going to upset you now but I suspect if your friend has helped out at Jewish toddler groups, then they must have been funded by the League of nations or some such body. If, in a country like Germany where a high percentage of women work and people are relatively more prosperous there is a shortage of childcare, then how can a struggling country like Poland afford them? What's the basic rate of income tax in Poland? And, what percentage of the working poulation pay it. When the League of nations is paying you can have anything you like.

no problem Sue, I am a victim of pub quizes!

but you raised many good points, however, I think there is a tendency to overgeneralise when dealing with Islamic societies

in many respects they are often as dissimilar from each other, as they are from other developed and developing countries, there are common themes but then again there are significant differences

by the same token, there is a tendency nowadays for some people on the Left to sanitise religious movements, something that they wouldn't have dreamed of doing say, 20-40 years ago.

I think part of the problem is some on the left (subconsciously) buy into Huntington's Clash of civilisations thesis. Plus the fact that some people cannot differentiate between Islam as a religious doctrine, and political Islamism as wider movement with various strands, instead they are often lumped together in a rather crude and clumsy fashion.

I think that socialists need to develop a much more detailed and subtle critique of political Islamism, and pay less attention to would-be "lessons" from 1920s Baku.

I think this is further complicated because in Britain, political Islamism (and all of its stands) is a strong magnetic force, which some socialists seem to feel incapable of resisting.

So developing a critique is hard for them, whilst political expediency forces them into alliances with political Islamists.

They are often torn between the tension of their underlying socialist beliefs, a desire to subjugate those views and keep in with political Islamists for wider geopolitical reasons. I think that such an approach is stressful, dishonest and ultimately counterproductive.

Andy:

Sue's arguments may be rather crude, but you're not comparing like-with-like. Nazism regarded Judaism as a racial rather than religious 'problem', and fully assimilated and atheist Jews were sent to extermination camps. Islam is a religion and as such needs to be treated as a legitimate target for criticism. However, I agree that it shouldn't be used to make glib statements about the Middle East as a whole.

andy newman wrote:

But some of you seem to beleive it is OK for socialist to peddle chauvinistic falsities and half-truths about a major religion.

did you pluck that from your arse as usual?

where exactly did I say that?

PS: Andy, please could you make an effort to use Firefox and an on-line dictionary? it always seems that half your posts are written when you've come back from the Pub, pissed.

They are unnecessarily hard to decipher on occasions, and there is NO excuse for constant mis-typing when Firefox will pick them up and make your points more enjoyable to read. :)

Modernity

My typing ability is part of my charm

It was me who said: "some of you seem to beleive it is OK for socialist to peddle chauvinistic falsities and half-truths about a major religion"

It is what Sue is doing.

Igor, I am comparing like with like because Sue constantly refers to the backwardness of islamic countries, not just to the ideology of the religion, it is she who says that Muslims come from the "dusty plains and the grassy mountains"

This is just a racist myth - people don't come from "dusty plains and the grassy mountains" becasue they are followers of islam, they come from "dusty plains and the grassy mountains" becasue those are the countries they come from, so Sue is saying that people from the Middlle easy and Hidu Kush are more backward than those of us from Europe.

Andy Newman wrote:

It is what Sue is doing.

if that is the case, then say it clearly, for once, rather than "But some of you seem to beleive it"

then you take your arguments up with her directly and do not malign other people by some sleight of hand

Andy, incidentally your constant mistyping is not part of your charm, it just appears that you're are partly drunk and can't be bothered to communicate with any degree of clarity.

I don't say that in a nasty way, if you want to have a quiet drink, that's fine by me, but it might explain why some of your posts are are extremely lucid and others, are, er, off their trolley.

He's not drunk. He's a very stupid man.

Sue R,

In fairness to Andy, he's not stupid.

He is a highly qualified Oxbridge graduate, but he did spend some nearly 20 years around the SWP.

I'm tempted to excuse many of his wilder comments as a result of having his brain sucked out, redecorated and put back in again by the SWP.

that's not an excuse, but an explanation.

PS: I was hoping that Eddie Truman would reply to my question on Catholicism, schools and indoctrination, after all I understand that Eddie is a leading spokesperson for Scottish socialism, so I don't think it's a terribly difficult question for him to answer.

I never comment when drunk

I actually wrote:

it just appears that you're(sic) are partly drunk

I always comment when drunk

BTW - Did you see that Liam rejoined Respect!?!?

yeah TWP, but your comments makes sense

Liam entryism? very cunning!

Modernity: Being academically gifted and going to an elite university is no barrier to stupidity. My own husband is a case in point! I find it offensive that my comments are twisted to claim I am a racist. It is necessary to distinguish between human bodies, physical entities, and ideas. Are not Marxists involved in a battle of ideas? The people who wilfully see the title 'neither Washington nor mosque' as a slur that Islam equals terrorism are the real misanthoropes, not Islamaphobes but misanthropes. It is because I want to see an end to oppression, famine, cruelty, ignorance and all the rest of it,that I am opposed to relgions which very often tolerate such nastiness. I think a child in Bangladesh or Mali has just as much right to a full belly and a safe bed to sleep in as a child in this country. And I don't mean provided by a charity like Worldvision but as a right in a freely directed society.

Sue, your points about Islam and religion in general are excellent.

However it is matter of empirical fact that early medieval Europe lost no contact withthe Greeks. Apart from the translation by Alfred the Great, which I cited, the Irish Monks retained a knowledge of the language and the works of, to cite but one example, are informed by this.

The great rennovation in knowledge of the ancient world and Greek knowledge happened with the Fall of Constantinople. When some erudites escaped the general massacre by progressive Islamicist civilisation and fled to Europe.

And, Andy Newman, what is your point about Cairo? A civilisation which existed on the backs of the slave trade? The Greeks may have executed Socrates and were equally a slave owning society, are to be defended not on the grounds of their social system but on that of the contribution of their cultural impact. Name me a single Islamicist 'scholar' who equals Aristotle.

Sue R wrote:

Modernity: Being academically gifted and going to an elite university is no barrier to stupidity.

I wouldn't disagree with that, however, I think in Andy Newman's case, many of his weirdo views are probably better explained by his years of political indoctrination and the occasional dip into the sauce. But I don't really know, I am merely speculating. You'd have to ask him directly. I have found myself occasionally agreeing with some of Andy's points (typically on trade unions or antifascism) but on other topics he can go off his rocker (Tibet).

I think it's a problem you find with a lot of Oxbridge types, they find it very hard to admit when they're wrong or to see other people's point of view. I assume it is part of the assertive middle-class upbringing, but not sure. I have seen these attitude problems many times on the Left, I have never worked out why exactly they occur though. I find it all very strange, because I come from a completely different background.

but you can see that elements of Andy's behaviour could be very off putting (apart from being factually incorrect), and he's by no means the worst. Which I think explains sometimes why the Left is so small and lacking in influencing Britain, as compared to European countries.

I think that weakness leads many of the Left towards the pull of Islamism, and compromises many of their previous views (gay rights, feminism, secularism, etc).

For example, I find it odd that people like Eddie Truman are incapable of discussing the issues of faith schools. In this case Catholicism and indoctrination, because they fear, or seem to fear that they might say something "wrong" or admit an honest opinion, which could reflect on the other political alliances.

And I think that leads to the second problem, apart from the dominant middle-class culture which affects the Left, the other problem is the "line".

Some people concoct a "line" on a subject (say Darfur) and will stick to it irrespective of changing circumstances, other people's views or more importantly reality. So you end up arguing with an automaton, incapable of reasoning outside of the "line", and it comes over as very insincere and puts people off politics. People know that they are being "sold" something and switch off.

Part of that is reflected in the quality of political debate in Britain, low to non-existent, therefore when new issues come up, there is a great deal of confusion until a "line" is worked out, which is often stuck to, no matter what. Now that type of attitude might work with zealot middle-class kids or students but it doesn't convince the wider working classes.

Political expedience isn't just confined to Tony Blair, a lot of those similar attitudes are found on the wider Left in Britain, and I think current political alliances have compromised the objectivity of many on the Left on these issues, and I think that this debate reflects that.

'modernityblog' wrote;
"I find it odd that people like Eddie Truman are incapable of discussing the issues of faith schools. "

What are talking about ?
I posted 650 words dealing with faith schools.
Did you read it ?
It contains the answer to your question, a pretty brainless question that uses the loaded language of the militant atheists.
"indoctrinated"
Why are Scotland's Protestant state schools not accused of indoctrination ?
Anyway, the answer to your question, as I said, is in the 650 words I posted, try reading it, you might learn something.

What did the Muslims ever do for us ?

A sensible system of numbers. No longer were the Europeans completely crippled by the absurdity that was Roman numerals.
Translated into Arabic and collated the works of Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagoras, Euclid and others.
Islamic scientists discovered the chemical properties of alkalis and acids.
The process of distillation was formulated and used to produce petrol from crude oil.
Islamic scientists contributed to algebra, algorithms, trigonometry, geometry, chemistry, cosmology, astronomy, medicine and optics.
Islamic scholars developed the concepts of modern hospitals, universities, observatories and civil systems.
Ibn Sina’s ‘The Canons of Medicine’ was a 14 volume standard medical text in the West for 700 years.

And so it goes on...

thanks eddie, you made my point for me, you can't actually debate the issue, you just spin out a "line" instead of engaging with these issues.

honestly, it ain't very convincing, particularly when it's coming from a leading spokesperson

and if you can't convince us here, who are essentially sympathetic to your views, then how do you expect to convince people in the wider world?

So when someone asks these types of questions, you give them the line (or presumably a pamphlet, or simple sheet of paper with the arguments), and if they ask a follow up question, you repeat the same arguments again, and again

can't you see the problem with that approach?

PS: I chose the topic of Catholicism, for the bleeding obvious reason that I know something about it, and have discussed it many years back with scottish socialists :)

I'm trying to pay attention to the football here so you'll forgive me for brevity.
Where on earth are you getting this "leading spokesperson" pish from ?
I'm no such thing, I'm just Eddie Truman.
Who are you by the way ?
Secondly "engaging with the issues".
You're doing no such thing.
You asked me a dumbass loaded question about what I thought of Catholic schools "indoctrinating" children.
The piece I posted dealt with faith schools in a nuanced and detailed way, something that is essential on an issue that can become extremely highly charged in the central belt of Scotland.
I live opposite my local Catholic Primary school.
I have no evidence whatsoever that it does anything other that produce well balanced, intelligent children.
My partner attended Catholic schools and is a well educated and free thinking individual.
Now, if you have sensible questions that facilitate reasoned debate that were not covered in the piece I posted then by all means ask them.
You'll have to excuse me for now though, Hibs have gone 1 up and I've more important things to pay attention to.

Eddie,

I would prefer to deal with the issues, but as you insist.

forgive me, aren't you the same Eddie Truman that was the leading spokesperson of the SSP, a full timer? or was that another?

you wrote:

You asked me a dumbass loaded question

I assume that if you been engaged in political activity for any time, or trade union work that you'd be used to a loaded question?

asking a loaded question often distinguishes between those spouting a "line" or people that have actually thought through the issues, rather than parrot someone else's instructions, but I assume you know that already

and concerning your anecdotal evidence, it isn't really isn't much of a debating tool, is it?

your very own document contradicted the gist of it as in "History has shown, however, that segregated schools have had the opposite effect of increasing sectarian divisions in Scotland's communities."

perhaps you should read the document after writing it?

as to the question of engaging with the argument, if you think it is beneath you, fine, I have no problem with that, it's a common middle-class attitude found on the Left

I assume that when you were at University they explained the idea of engaging with your interlocutor's points. That's if you are actually concerned to win people over to your point of view, or you could lecture them from on high, the two approaches are not necessarily compatible.

It's also a fairly handy technique when working in trade unions.

It's half time so...
Firstly, never been to university in my life, left school in 1978 when I was 16.
Why is it such a common feature of the left that without knowing someone or their background that the "middle class" put down is used ?
Secondly, on the quote you pull out of the document, you highlighted that before and I responded to it.
Also, do you think the document was written by a machine ?
The "line" machine ?
No it wasn't, it was written by human beings after debate and discussion.
I posted it in order to save re-inventing the wheel.
Lastly, I'm not a spokesperson for anything and the fact that you keep inserting the word "leading" tells me that all you are trying do is give your own arguments some kind of extra kudos.
Now, back to the football.

P.S Do you appear to have spent the entire past 3 days sitting posting on the comments section of this blog, do you not have a life ?

eddie,

sorry, if I assumed that you of being an ex-student type

however, given the middle-class composition of the Left in Britain nowadays, it is easy to assume thatdrew

I'm sure if you sample the leadership of most leftwing group or grouplets you might find that they are almost entirely composed of ex-students or the middle classes, which shouldn't be a problem but they tend to bring a lot of class baggage and upbringing with them, some of them are fine people, whilst others are often less than sparkling

I believed John Sullivan covered it better than me, in when the Pubs close, http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages//////////Sectariana/Pub.html#Conclusion

But never mind, I doubt you'd see the humour in John's words

still it is a funny old world when some socialists expend their energies defending theists and their ideas

Fair play comrade, you don't often come across someone who apologises on the internet !
I've read the John Sullivan piece before, it's very good.
In the great scheme of things I don't expend much energy "defending theists and their ideas", most of it is the traditional fare of the left; council cuts, strikes etc.
I would, again, seriously recommend a read of Paul Siegel's "The Meek and the Militant".
Anyways, got the grandchildren coming round tomorrow and other stuff to deal with so I'll no doubt come across you some other time.
All the best.

The terms of the debate are rather confrontational

I don't know what happend to my last post, only half a sentence came out. The point I was making was that many of the advances in human culture and knowledge that are ascribed to the Arabs/Muslims are actually Indian or Iranian or Greek or Ancient Egyptian. As I said befoer, it's the here and now that should concern us anyway. I note that whenever people defend Islamic society they always have to retreat to five hundred years ago. Don't you think history has moved on since then? At least in part of the world. Of course poeple have admirable motives in defending Muslims, they value human life, but as I also said above, don't socialists have a concept of false consciousness and aren't we in the business of the battle of ideas, ideological struggle?

I think that this thread has been very interesting, not least because it smoked out a few people and highlighted why the Left in Britain is so small and probably will remain so.

It is noticeable how some people attacked Dave about the title, which when you think about it is rather petty and saves them from dealing with the meat of these type of arguments.

I think that people have to make the distinction between Islam as a religion (in the same way, that Catholicism is), it varied political manifestations (political parties, mass movements, etc), Jihadist type ideologies and "War on terror".

Of course it can be argued that they are all tied together, but unless you try to disentangle them and deal with then logically, then there is the possibility that discussions will become confused and unnecessarily messy, as below indicates.

Stating the obvious, no socialist should go out of their way to gratuitously offend other people, for the sake of it. If you wouldn't do it in real-life then why would you do it when you're trying to win people over to your point of view? That's a basic ABC of trade unionism.

I think Phil's comment of 18:54, 11 September 2007 was good "Pardon the lecture. I can't think of any single thing that's done more to alienate me from the RESPECT project than the omission of those two words - the right to wear the hijab or not."

Sue R made some good points (women's rights, etc) but conflated the issues too much, in my view, in a n attempt to make a general broadside on Arab/Islamic societies, and some of Andy Newman response's were correct some of the time.

Alex Nichols comments were first-rate:
"In other words, it's possible to unite with those who are in organised religious groupings, without confronting the issue of what political programme they should actually put forward.
That is to severely underestimate the reactionary role that organised religion can play in politics. The evidence of history is that religious groupings do not move over to a socialist position en-bloc." and

"More important is the question of what role socialist women would play within Muslim societies where these, and more deep-seated issues of women's opression need to be confronted."

Tom P's remarks were sound "This kind of assertion - far too common amongst lefties - implies that that fundie terrorism is some kind of 'inevitable' reaction to what 'the West' does. It isn't any more than David Copeland's bombs in Brixton and Brick Lane were an 'inevitable' response to immigration."

and

"It is that simple and the Left, in my opinion, shouldn't waste time and political capital seeking to "understand" the people involved, or (even worse) try and crudely fit religious atrocities into a crude cause & effect model where all sins (ho hum) lead back to the West.

and

More generally on the whole armed struggle point I don't think I would defend it in all but the most (genuinely) extreme circumstances. Killing people because of their politics/religion (the two mixed up in NI) is just fucking brutal and not something socialists should ever advocate. ver."

The intervention from the Islamophobia Watch people was entertaining, Duncan Money gave the best reply of "Wow so Dave is now 'Islamaphobic', but why stop there? For real impact I think you need to add neo-con, racist, zionist, imperialist, fascistic, Stalinist, zionist war-monger." of

Voltaire's Priest spoke for a lot of socialists with ""Islamophobia Watch" really is a load of shite isn't it? That article's just further proof of why. If authors spent more time actually fighting racists rather than misrepresenting anti-racists like Dave, then their lives might acquire some meaning. Until then they're just a bunch of wankers with a crap website.

Andrew Coates illuminates the issue with "I personally would not shed a tear if the imperialists destroy any Islamicists. I would shed a tear if any ordinary people were involved in which is essentially a war between rival systems of oppression.

The cross arguments between Andy Newman, Southpawpunch and Red Deathy was vaguely amusing, along with TWP's reply to SSP's nonsense of "Ok SSP - How about you donate it to my favourite charity:"

Eddie Truman's point around "This is a favourite of the militant atheist fools who seem to make up a significant section of the left in the UK. " does illustrate how political alliances can seemingly cause people to take up the theist's case, and subjugate any reservations that they might have for the sake of their own political expediency. Shame really.

Shocked's observation was constructive "I guess it all boils down to whether you believe the building of a progressive socialist society is dependent upon the secularisation of the people.

and

Socialism - to me - is all about a common humanitarianism as well as rational and secular-based political theories. I'm instinctively convinced that the way forward for the human race requires less religion."

Overall, I thought there were many stimulating contributions (and if I missed any good ones out, again my poor sight, sorry).

This thread shows the need for debate on these topics (shame no one took the trouble to even try and answer Sue R's latest questions), and Dave was right to use such a provocative title.

modernityblog wrote: "I think Phil's comment of 18:54, 11 September 2007 was good "Pardon the lecture. I can't think of any single thing that's done more to alienate me from the RESPECT project than the omission of those two words - the right to wear the hijab or not."

But Brum.Red as has already quoted several statements by Salma Yaqoob making precisely that point.

Evidently, for modernityblog, the defence of "Enlightenment values" doesn't actually involve paying any attention to objective evidence if it clashes with modernityblog's own prejudices.

thanks Geoffrey, your pedantry is amazing, but as Phil replied:

"Thanks, Brum. I should have specified "in my experience", "in the RESPECT/SWP literature I've seen locally", or similar."

that was my impression as well, those two little words,

Geoffrey, can you deal with any of the bigger issues?

modernityblog wrote: "Geoffrey, can you deal with any of the bigger issues?"

But that's modernityblog's stock condescending response when anyone makes a point he doesn't like.

For example he writes: "It is noticeable how some people attacked Dave about the title, which when you think about it is rather petty and saves them from dealing with the meat of these type of arguments."

Dave's title in fact encapsulates what's gone wrong with a section of the Left, who have capitulated to the prevailing atmosphere of anti-Muslim bigotry and adopted some of that mind-set and rhetoric.

Dave used the term "mosque" as a synonym for Al-Qaida, identifying all Muslims with terrorism - without any apparent consciousness of how objectionable that is. He then went on to write that "Islamist networks can and must be infiltrated and smashed", without making any distinction between non-violent forms of political Islam and terrorist groupuscules.

How would modernityblog react if Dave posted a comment about the history of modern Israel using the word "synagogue" as a synonym for the Irgun - and then, on the basis that some Zionists are terrorists, went on to state that "Zionist networks can and must be infiltrated and smashed"?

And if someone pointed out that these formulations had a distinctly antisemitic character, would modernityblog reject such objections as "rather petty"?

Geoffrey,

I notice you don't deal with any of the major issues, fair enough, if you wish to do another Bob Pitt then fire away.

I wondered when, in this type of discussion, the word "Zionist" would be brought up, par for the course, eh?

Your comments are just a deflection and do not engage at all with any of the varied points of discussion

a pretty poor tactic, but to be expected nowadays

it is as if the issue of secularism is one that some people would wish could be swept under the carpet, and yet to do so would reduce the last hundred years of socialist history as to nothing

little is spoken of Irish socialists and their battle against the Church and reactionary ideas, nor of French socialists just in case that nasty, nasty word "secularism" comes up,

Heaven forbid that an Italian socialist should make a fuss about the Vatican's conduct !

And if Gays or those concerned with women's rights bring up some issues then they are automatically labelled as "Islamophobic" or screechingly denounced as "racists", irrespective of the content of their criticism

So that is what it has come to, Western socialists (often atheists themselves) becoming protective and apologetic when anything close to the notion of the separation of Church and State comes into view, just in case it offends their local theist allies

imagine if you translated those attitudes and views to North America? you'd end up with left-wing socialists supporting barking mad fundamentalist Christian faith schools in the US of A, etc

and you don't think that's strange??

Just taken a look at modernityblog, truly shocking! Its you that has questions to answer, slagging off Pilger for a great and thoughtful article on Palestine, links to dodgy pro Israeli sites etc etc.
Calling for the unconditional realase of an IDF thug who was terrorising Palestinians.

Paddy,

slag me off all you want, I am far too old to care

but that won't change one iota, these issues, these questions won't go away

again I think that's socialists need to think a new about the phenomena of political Islamism (in all its varied manifestations), make distinctions between that, the religion of Islam and the people concerned

there needs to be cogent and detailed socialist analysis, not 2 penny slogans

Well you are a political zionist, why not address that?
Im sure we both agree that political islam has arisen in a vaccuum where the left should have been around.
Unfortunatley things didn't happen that way so we have to engage with it.

modernityblog wrote: "Voltaire's Priest spoke for a lot of socialists with 'Islamophobia Watch really is a load of shite isn't it? That article's just further proof of why. If authors spent more time actually fighting racists rather than misrepresenting anti-racists like Dave, then their lives might acquire some meaning. Until then they're just a bunch of wankers with a crap website.'"

Like the nonsense about Respect failing to defending the right of Muslim women not to wear the hijab, this is an example of modernityblog repeating baseless accusations because they happen to fit in with modernityblog's own prejudices. So much for Enlightenment values, eh?

Anyone who's bothered to look at Islamophobia Watch will see that there's an entire section devoted to "Far Right Racists" and the site scrupulously (not to say obsessively) covers and exposes the BNP's anti-Muslim racism.

Unfortunately, anti-Muslim bigotry is not restricted to fascists or even to the mainstream Right. Liberals and leftists often employ similar rhetoric about Islam, obscuring the distinctions between Muslims in general, political Islamism and a tiny minority of terrorists, and depicting Muslims and their culture as alien to western civilisation.

Indeed, one of the most worrying features of the current wave of anti-Muslim hysteria is precisely that it is not restricted to the Right but is given legitimacy by people with supposedly progressive views - who not only fail to oppose this hysteria but accept some of the thinking behind it.

It's rather reminiscent of the response of some leftists and liberals to antisemitism in the 20th century. They denied being racists but argued that suspicion towards the Jewish community had some basis in reality (as Beatrice Webb put it, "why is it that everyone who has dealings with Jewry ends by being prejudiced against the Jew").

So a site committed to exposing Islamophobia has to take on, not just the racist Right, but also certain leftists, liberals and secularists.

As for modernityblog's parallel between the Left defending Muslims against bigotry and the Left forming an alliance with Christian fundamentalism in the US, this simply underlines the stupidity of certain secular rationalists whose blanket hostility to religion blinds them to social context. To make the obvious point: Muslims in the West are an oppressed minority; the leaders of right-wing Christian evangelism in the US are part of the apparatus of oppression.

According to modernityblog's context-free militant secularism, it would be perfectly OK for a German journalist at the time of Kristallnacht to publish an article exposing the backward aspects of Judaism - and then turn around and express indignation at accusations of racism, arguing that attacking Jewish faith and culture was no different from denouncing Christianity.

I'd second everything written in Martin's post and also add that the additional factor at work here is that liberal cliquists like Modernity and VP seem to think that people they are friendly with are above political criticism. Pathetic really.

Anyway, don't expect any sensible response from Modernity. In all likelyhood he will now proceed to take a small part of your post, misrepresent it and interrogate you on that point until you can't be bothered to respond to his shit anymore, at which point the deluded fool will claim victory.

"Muslims in the West are an oppressed minority"

How? Surely they have the same rights as everyone else? They may have to put up with some ill-informed prejudice from certain sections of the media and general population, but then so do chavs. Muslims are more persecuted outside of the West, particularly in certain countries where extremist Muslims are killing them in large numbers.

And as I've pointed out before- there's no similarity between Nazi RACIAL persecution of Jews and RELIGIOUS criticism of political Islam.

It looks as if Islamophobia Watch has sent out a SWAT team to deal with any criticism, and whilst I can see that their intervention is intentional, to force the disintegration of the thread and terminate any debate on this topic, I would like to deal with a number of Martin’s points

1. Dave on Islamophobia Watch
2. Closing down the debate
3. Faith schools and Catholicism
4. False analogies
5. distinctions

1. For Islamophobia Watch to imply that Dave Osler is in anyway the same company as the BNP or nasty racists, by the inclusion on their Web site is outrageous. Dave has a long history of anti-fascist activity and work against racism. So for Bob Pitt or one of his associates to suggest that they alone can distinguish what is Islamophobia and what isn’t, is bizarre. Thus you either get Islamophobia Watch’s seal of approval or for ever you are dammed.

2. This approach is essentially trying to close down any form of debate and it won’t work.

This is the problem with the issue, the likes of Islamophobia Watch and their allies won’t brook ANY form of debate on these valid political topics (such as political Islamism).

Their first inclination is not to acknowledge that debating these topics could be politically worthwhile, but rather to conflate issues, spread fear and doubt, and set about Dave Osler.

It just shows how low parts of the Left have gone.

these discussions will continue, with or without Islamophobia Watch groupies, neither they, censors, repressive dictatorships, or Party's diktats will stop this debate.

The Internet debate will not be restricted by a pile of political hacks

Islamophobia Watch can moan, they can bitch, it won't make a damn's bit of difference, discussing political Islamism is a valid topic and they won't be able to stop it, despite their hysteria and despite the false analogies.

3. Faith schools and Catholicism.

Martin wrote:

As for modernityblog's parallel between the Left defending Muslims against bigotry

sadly, you didn’t either read or understand the points that I made, I expressly was interested in Eddie Truman’s, etc attitude towards CATHOLICISM. Got that??

You didn’t see the point? In North America socialists are arguing against the imposition of faith schools, including Catholic ones, and fighting the fundamentalist right.

Yet in Scotland you have some socialists arguing for Catholic faith schools despite evidence that they increase the sectarian divide.

You don’t see any issue with that? Honestly?

Martin wrote:

it would be perfectly OK for a German journalist at the time of Kristallnacht to publish an article exposing the backward aspects of Judaism

I am talking about today, if you feel comfortable, as a socialist, defending the motion of State funded "faith" schools, then say so openly, and why?

on the other hand, if you think that today's climate in Britain is any way a parallel to 1938 Germany then shows us how?

Is there a Nazi Party in power? Have political parties been banned? Have Trade Unions been disbanded? Are there concentration camps? Are there SA torture dungeons, etc

the analogy is false and you know it.

Martin, you will notice the difference between us,

you conflate things, you try to confuse the issues, deliberately, whilst I have tried to distinguish between a religion, a political philosophy and the people concerned.

You and many others would have us believe that criticism of one is criticism of all, and that clearly is not the case.

Socialists for years have been the biggest critics of Catholicism and other reactionary creeds, with just cause: the continuation of superstition, the oppression of women and the repression of gays are just a few things that socialists have fought against.

So I think that it is perfectly legitimate for socialists to develop a critique and analysis of the ***political*** manifestations of religious doctrines.

I don’t, however, think that gratuitously attacking religious people purely for their beliefs is helpful or necessary.

It is these political manifestations that should concern socialists, and when you think about it, politics is what we should be discussing not closing down any debate.

Martin;

Rather than talking platitudinous bollocks, why don't you answer the specific point about
Dave. Do you think he's a racist, if so then why, and if not then don't you think it would be worth either making that clear in your daft article, apologising to Dave, or both?

all of those socialist supporters of "faith" school should read this great article, see http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

"A report has revealed what many of us long suspected - that faith schools are able to 'cherry-pick' their intake and thus boost their exam results and league table places. Faith schools, it seems, take in kids from families who are "significantly more affluent" than the average for the area in which they are located.

Using government figures for schools across London, the report - produced by academics from the London School of Economics and the University of London - found that only 17% of faith school pupils qualify for free school meals, much less than the average 25%, and that the schools educate fewer than 20% of the lowest-ability kids compared with 31% at secular schools.

Defenders of faith schools often point to their better-then-average exam results as some kind of 'proof' that being schooled in superstition is good for kids. Now we know how they do it - not through moral rigour but through immoral manipulation of the system. I look forward to their next declaration of their spiritual superiority to the rest of us."

The “great article” recommended by modernityblog is by Janine Booth, who is one of the most stupid and dogmatic supporters of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. (And in a hotly contested field that is no minor achievement.)

The study by Rebecca Allen and Anne West of 47 state-maintained faith-based comprehensive schools in London does indeed underline what proponents of a secular education system have always argued – that the better academic results achieved by religious as compared with non-religious schools derive from their social intake rather than from any innate superiority of faith-based education.

What Booth ignores is the report’s finding that, while the religious school system in London does not discriminate on the basis of ethnic origin as such (in fact Black African and Caribbean ethnic groups are over-represented relative to other groups – presumably because they include a larger proportion of practising Christians), it does operate to the disadvantage of members of minority religions.

The report finds that pupils from South Asian minority groups are particularly under-represented in faith-based comprehensives in London, with just 1% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils educated in religious schools. The reason for this, of course, is that pupils of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin are overwhelmingly from Muslim families.

In London, there are 67 Catholic comprehensive schools, 25 CofE, 3 from other Christian dominations and 3 Jewish. The number of Muslim comprehensive schools (and Hindu schools for that matter) is precisely zero.

There are only 8 state-maintained Muslim schools in the entire country, compared with 4,646 CofE and 2,041 Roman Catholic. 1,710,400 pupils are in maintained Christian schools and only 1,770 pupils in maintained Muslim schools. Yet there are 1.6 million Muslims in the UK.

The existing system is plainly discriminatory. It means that, unlike Christian parents, Muslim parents who want their kids to have a faith-based education have to fork out for an independent school. This should be particularly unacceptable to socialists given that Muslims are disproportionately represented among low-income families.

Which brings me to the government’s recent report Faith in the System, the cover of which illustrates Booth’s article. She offers it as evidence that “the government is paving the way for more religious schools” – which indicates that she hasn’t been following actual developments in government policy.

Commenting on the Allen-West report, Ed Balls stated clearly that the government has “no policy to increase the number” of faith schools (which is not the sort of thing we used to hear in Blair’s day). What Faith in the System does commit the government to do is to “encourage independent schools to enter the maintained sector in their existing premises”.

So what we are likely to see in the immediate future is not more faith schools as such but rather some of the hundred-odd independent Muslim schools being brought into the state sector.

On basic democratic grounds this cannot be opposed, it seems to me. Socialists should apply the method outlined in the SSP briefing paper posted by Eddie Truman further up this thread. We should advocate a secular education system as a strategic objective, but in the here and now we can’t stand in the way of the democratic demands raised by religious minorities.

The alternative would be to form a bloc with anti-Muslim bigots to resist Muslim schools being given state funding. I mean, even the Alliance for Workers' Liberty wouldn’t do that, would they?

Well, actually, in Nottingham in 2005 the AWL did exactly that, campaigning to stop the Islamia school in Hyson Green being brought into the state system and celebrating their victory over the Muslims when the Islamia school’s request was rejected.

re Martin:-

You've put the whole question of faith-based education in its correct context, but the nub of the question is in your point :-

"We should advocate a secular education system as a strategic objective, but in the here and now we can’t stand in the way of the democratic demands raised by religious minorities."
Since there has never been a major campaign by socialists for the secularisation of state education, adopting your position is just the line of least resistance.

The growth of the Catholic education in the late 19th Century was a minor gain for Irish working class people at a time when they faced discrimination in state schools.
But it was promoted by figures in the Catholic clergy such as Cardinal Newman, not by socialists.

Over 100 years later, religious influence in Education is growing again, both in terms of government funding and the official requirement for "compulsory acts of worship" of a "broadly Christian nature"
Yet another Tory measure, introduced in the 1996 Education Act, that New Labour failed to repeal.
Yet something that probably the majority of parents, pupils and teachers oppose.

So I see no evidence for the "strategic objective" being anything more than Sunday School sloganising about Socialism.
Without any practical action on this question, it's not very suprising that Muslims and other ethnic minorities feel impelled to create religious schools of their own.

But even if they achieved proportionate funding with CofE and RC schools, would that mean we were any nearer to the long-term objective?
I don't see how, because uniquely, this "democratic demand" doesn't reduce privilege or segregation.

Alex,

good points,

if the socialist proponents of a "faith" schools were more honest about their motives, they would admit it is purely because they believe that their constituents want these "faith" schools that they have such a (SSP) policy and it is primarily to curry favour, rather than some principled stance on education.

Martin still hasn't answered the point of:

"why don't you answer the specific point about Dave. Do you think he's a racist, if so then why, and if not then don't you think it would be worth either making that clear in your daft article, apologising to Dave, or both?"

Alex Nichols wrote: "I see no evidence for the 'strategic objective' being anything more than Sunday School sloganising about Socialism."

That's a fair point. While an entirely secular state-funded education system is not a short or medium term prospect, socialists should nevertheless advocate policies that lead in that direction.

I think we need to revive Frank Dobson's proposal that the 1944 Education Act should be amended so that state-funded faith schools are required to take at least 25% of their pupils from families of other faiths or no faith.

But that would have to apply to all state-maintained faith schools. It would be no solution to restrict the quota to new maintained faith schools as Alan Johnson was at one point proposing to do.

Given that the expansion of state-maintained faith schools in the near future is likely to concentrate on bringing Muslim and other minority schools into the state sector, Johnson's proposal would just have discriminated against those minority schools while leaving existing, predominantly Christian schools outside the quota system and still free to choose 100% of their pupils from their own faith.

Whenever the introduction of a quota is flagged up the result is a fierce backlash from all faith groups - because they see it (quite accurately) as undermining the principle of state-funded religious education - and the government has capitulated to them. However, with Blair now departed and the government evidently shifting towards a less enthusiastic stance on faith schools, the conditions would appear more favourable for a campaign to introduce a quota system.