Thoughts on this community post by Hakim? ( lemmygrad.ml )

CountryBreakfast , 7 months ago

Plural thinking is not easy to do but Hakim is an intelligent person. That people are always looking to police each other over things like this is so tiring. If we can't stand with Muslims right now when it's basically 2001 all over again then we leave no choice but for people like Hakim to look at us and realize the truth, "they are who we thought they were."

He is a Muslim first and a Marxist second.

You're goddamn right. Islam is racialized. He has no choice, especially when Marxists won't even give him respectful breathing room.

Munrock , 7 months ago

I like Hakim's content, but

You know you can take this up with him directly, right? If you know his content well enough to first say that you like it, and second claim with confidence that he's a "Muslim first and a Marxist second," you must have heard more than once that his DMs are open.

Why here? He doesn't even participate here. The !leftistinfighting community even states in its description that this place is for directly challenging one another, and yet this post is challenging a specific individual who isn't present.

What purpose is served by posting this criticism here, that isn't better served by posting it directly to the accused?

201dberg , 7 months ago

OPs account is 8 months old and up until this post they had only 3 other posts and virtually no comments. For 8 months. Now all of a sudden 95% of their activity is to start a pretty controversial struggle session in two instances. I am always suspect of accounts like this an those that jump on board almost instantly.

smrtfasizmu OP , 7 months ago

What are you implying here? I barely had any posts because I don't come on here very often and when I do, I mostly lurk. I merely wanted people's opinions and I posted on the appropriate instance. What's the problem?

ComradeSalad , 7 months ago

Because that’s the purpose of this sub? The side bar even explicitly mentions that hostility and criticism is accepted. Is Hakim not a leftist? Is this not “Leftist infighting”?

This could be a bot troll, but the post is completely within the limits of what’s allowed here.

QueerCommie , 7 months ago

When i first saw this i instinctively sided Roderic Day (refer to hexbear struggle session), but increasingly I've come to the conclusion that Hakim is not in fact proselytizing, he is simply answering the questions of people who came to their Muslim comrade with questions about Islam.

Aru , 7 months ago

Whenever I talk about Islam to Marxists or Marxism to Muslims, I get the exact same reaction from both sides, instantly shutting down the other by calling them "Idealist" or "Kaffir" and not take any time to understand each other, like at most they'll read the Quran or they'll read the communist manifesto, not take time to understand it and call it a day, which I understand because not everyone has the time to read a book so long and repetitive let alone understand every bit of it, that's the point of having a conversation and asking questions, but you can't write off everything in you way and label it as "big bad" for having a word that you don't like, that's just ignorance.

StalinForTime , 7 months ago

You are definitely correct that there is not much communication going on, let alone productive. But another reason for that this is an awkward and difficult conversation to be had as Marxism and Islam are ideologically contradictory is a very strong, formal sense. Obviously this is most immediately an abstract, theoretical point, though that is not irrelevant, as moving through differences and formal contradictions towards consistency is necessary for moving towards truth, and truth is not irrelevant to politics, especially Marxist politics. There is also the issue of the political history of Islam, which is not very progressive and has become less so in the modern era imo. The contradiction between them is also not only something perceived by Marxists, but is very much clear to Muslims as well. An issue that Marxist militants ALWAYS have in my experience in situations like this is that if you are talking politics, or trying to agitate or organize, and you are doing so with religious individuals, especially if they are radicalizing and becoming interested in Marxism, is the contradiction they clearly perceive between their religious convictions and their developing Marxist/Communist political beliefs. At a point if you are in a party you do have to have the conversation with potential militants or members that Marxism is not compatible with the liberal position on religion of pretending like it is politically irrelevant, simply to appeal to the insecurity or narcissism of particular individuals who want to have their cake and eat it too. It is completely incompatible with the Leninist conception of the party.

It shouldn't be surprising that Marxists are not, in general, going to be attracted to a religion which not only explicitly states that they deserve to be and will be burned and unimaginably tortured in hell for eternity, whose metaphysics is clearly incompatible, but more importantly from it's inception to the current day has proscribed very different political structures and relations than Marxism (again, not a surprise, given that it emerged in Arabia in the 7th century CE, and that it's founder was not only a political and religious leader but a warlord who seems to have committed war crimes and whose values were profoundly different to those of modern socialism).

It's not a coincidence that the modern radical and dynamic expressions of political energy in the Islamic world of the modern era have been Islamist, and that Islamists immediately crush any progressive forces when they come confidently into power. Every place they have come to power they have enacted absolutely depraved social policies. The success of Islamism in the modern era is not only an expression of the religiosity of these societies and the effects of Imperialism and Colonialism, but also an expression of the failures of progressive forces, i.e. communists and socialists in these societies.

Honestly a consequence of this is that individuals then often end up taking pretty simplistic or nationalist positions in relation to certain political struggles, because there is also a reticence among many people of the left to recognize the self-evidently reactionary aspects of certain movements which stem directly from their religious, theocratic ideologies, as well as broader material conditions, due to the risk that that will be perceived as an attack of the downtrodden. It's a bizarrely moralistic, un-Marxist, and frankly moronic position to take, because more fundamentally its a question of being realistic about the political possibilities available to movements which are not driven ideologically by socialist or communist ideology, which I think worsens alot of the analysis you see on these problems.

GrainEater , 7 months ago

explicitly states that they [presumably atheists since Marxism didn't exist then] deserve to be and will be burned and unimaginably tortured in hell for eternity

Where in the Muslim holy texts is this stated?

Every place they have come to power they have enacted absolutely depraved social policies

Can you give some examples that weren't more or less created by the West? I'm not aware of Libya having depraved social policies before the coup

Aru , 7 months ago

Where in the Muslim holy texts is this stated?

Quran [2:39], it also says it a few more times, but It's about the afterlife, anyone who doesn't believe in the afterlife and just believes a person lives in complete darkness also sees a shitty afterlife for believers of any religion, basically working your entire life just to be stuck in complete darkness and disappear, you can't be neutral about the afterlife. it is something that shouldn't matter for anyone who wants to stay out of idealism, what should matter to judge a religion or a school of thought is how it teaches to act towards anyone who's not from it, and the Quran says in [60:7] [60:8] [60:9] what it says.

Can you give some examples that weren’t more or less created by the West? I’m not aware of Libya having depraved social policies before the coup.

Iran, the laws against women are real, but a lot of the laws were made up by the Iran, the example I can give instantly is that in Islam there is no law that punishes women for not wearing Hijab, while Iran law criminalizes it.

Aru , 7 months ago

It shouldn’t be surprising that Marxists are not... modern socialism).

This right here is exactly what I'm talking about, If I went out to a Muslims right now and asked them about Marxism they'd talk about China torturing the Uyghurs or that Stalin killed one gazzilion people, you have not read about Islam and you're perceiving it from whatever source you got it from, that's why you said Muhammed was a warlord who committed warcrimes [search the Islamic laws of war] instead of commenting on something that can actually be criticized.

(It’s not a coincidence that... socialists in these societies.)

This is why it is important to understand Islam, there's 1.6 billion Muslims, you can not fight against all of them and you can not magically convince all of them to pick a political side that was heavily red scared to them and that contradicts them, in fact they will declare Jihad on you and I think for being so ignorant you'd deserve it at that point.

(Honestly a consequence ... you see on these problems.)

Once again what I said, I did not suggest that Hamas should rule the universe or that the next Caliphate be built in China, you just read Islam and thought of idk a communist caliphate or islamic socialism or some bullshit, you've proved yourself to be speaking out of Islamophobic propaganda just like Muslims speak out of red scare propaganda, I am telling you need to actually read and understand something to do an analysis on it, and this is also what Hakim was calling for in the first place.

AmarkuntheGatherer , 7 months ago

You know, for a man that's so well read I have a feeling he hasn't really touched much ex-muslim writings. That said I wouldn't have written a word had I not seen so many defending him.

I'm not being an edgy anti-theist. I know that any attempt to actively dissuade people of their religion is futile at best and often malicious. The issue is that he's precribing something that's not possible to reasonably back up.

If his analysis is that Islam is more conducive to a liberation struggle, he should say so. It'd be easy to debunk mind you; liberation struggles, marxist and non-marxist, happen all over the world. West Asia isn't close to being unique in this regard. Desire for liberty is quite inherent to all peoples of the world and fighting against subjugation doesn't become something else done for different reasons because the people doing the fighting are attributing their struggle to something else.

I feel this might not be quite clear, so I'll try to elaborate. A people may struggle and they may attribute their will to fight to their God, their patriotism, or something else they believe in. This doesn't make it true. If it were, we'd see a clear distinction between peoples of different religions or cultures, yet we don't. People struggle whether they believe in Allah, Buddha or Wakan Tanka. What we do see is that people in similar material conditions react in similar ways. A people under siege, kicked from their homes, treated with disdain and contempt will fight back. Many, of different cultures and religions have. From this it should be easy to conclude that the initial claim would be chauvinistic, even if one isn't impuning other beliefs.

I'm thinking how one would write that and make those recommendations without a hint of chauvinism, I can't really think of a way. He recommends books quite similar to books my haji grandfather gave me to read. He thought Islam was correct and that by reading, I'd come to the same conclusions and my faith would be stronger for it. It backfired spectacularly, but that's not my point. He wasn't trying to proselytise, in his mind he was doing no more than give a kid the tools he needed to find the truth. His best intentions didn't make him less chauvinistic, and they wouldn't Hakim. It doesn't make them bad people, but it means their approach doesn't have a sound material basis.

Edit: I deleted the last part because it wasn't helpful. I don't begrudge people fighting for their lives their religion, if that's what gets them through, all the power to them. All I'm saying is that these people aren't holding onto religion because it gives them their will, it gives them their will because they're believers holding onto it. Reading the life of the Prophet doesn't inform the readers as would the words of Ho Chi Minh or the history of Palestine, which is why I took issue with the post and its defenders.

I feel like an old man, I'm still having trouble with this website, pressing reply insread of edit.

cucumovirus , 7 months ago

In pretty much every post here and on hexbear that's defending Hakim's post I see at least one of a few assumptions taken as true which aren't.

Firstly, no one here is criticizing the Palestinian resistance and the forms it takes. We're criticizing Hakim's post. Hakim has positioned himself as a Marxist educator and taken on the role of spreading ML theory. With this come some responsibilities, namely to share actual Marxist analysis. When he departs from this, he'll get rightly criticized for it.

He can be religious and do what he wants. No one is criticizing the fact that he's religious. We're criticizing the fact that he brands himself a Marxist educator with Lenin as his picture and then shares idealist analysis like in this post.

Secondly, that his analysis is not idealist, when it really is. This has nothing to do with Islam specifically, it would be true of any religion, but stating that a religion is what's driving resistance is simply idealist. As Marxists we know that it's the material conditions that are the primary drivers of both the zionist settler-colonialism and Palestinian resistance. We, of course, don't neglect the superstructural aspects, with ideology and religion among them, but we don't make them the primary drivers of resistance. We begin with the material.

There have been similar resistance movements throughout history, some religious and some not which have persisted just like the Palestinian movement. As Marxists we understand why that is, and that, while in each particular case the particular ideology had an impact, ideology as such is not the driving force behind revolution.

As Amílcar Cabral said

always bear in mind that people are not fighting for ideas, for things in anyone's head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better lives and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children.

What we (Marxists-Leninists) should be spreading are works through which you can learn about settler-colonialism and resistance to it in general, and works about the specific conditions of Palestine. No one's even saying we should totally ignore religion, but it cannot form the basis of our analysis, and we cannot center it above the material.

An example of a better (in my opinion) post about Palestinian resistance right now is this thread by Roderic Day.

Also, as Marxists, critique is what we do. No one is beyond critique, and especially not our fellow comrades. Such critique and discussion is how we arrive at correct theory (and practice) and consolidate around it.

DankZedong , 7 months ago

I don't agree with what Hakim said but it's not like he's the grand Oracle of communist theory. He's a young guy who grew up in a war torn country in which more than a million of his fellow countrypeople have been massacred by the west. A country that is geographically much closer to an ongoing genocide than the western country I am in right now.

Of course religion isn't the main thing driving the Palestinians forward right now. But it probably plays an important role in a Muslim Majority country.

What bugs me, though, is that many western communist nearly start foaming at the mouth the moment religion gets brought up, especially in combination with communism. Meanwhile we have actual religious majority countries being AES or resisting imperialism and it feels highly chauvinistic to discredit their struggle purely because they are religious. Once the first perfect atheist western revolution without violence and possible reactionary takes happens, we'll see. But my money is that our own revolutions, of they ever happen, will be far from 'perfect' as well.

lil_tank , 7 months ago

What bugs me, though, is that many western communist nearly start foaming at the mouth the moment religion gets brought up

Yes, that's the core of the issue. Comrades, you can think whatever you want on this subject but in practice we need to be as understanding as possible because a lot of people who most want to see imperialism burn are muslim. This alliance is necessary and we won't win anything by trying to impose atheism. Materialism is a tool, it doesn't have to be a core belief that defines your whole being.

StalinForTime , 7 months ago

Saying 'people can think whatever they want on this subject' is dodging the real substantive issue though, namely the question of how much religious ideology limits the progressive potential of any political struggle, and frankly history is as unambiguous about this question, as a general rule, as it could be about any other. We know that the religious ideology is a serious impediment to communist politics. The counterexamples normally presented are very weak, such as Liberation Theology, as none of these have had the explanatory power or political or organizational success of Marxist movements proper. Imo his has to do with the fact that how ideology functions, and what it justifies, and how it shapes how you think, reason, and justify certain positions, policies and practices, is simply not equivalent between Marxism, which is the Proletarian and therefore political stage of scientific enlightenment and of scientific revolution, and Islam, which is a fairly reactionary (at this stage in history) religious ideology which emerged in a very different context which shaped how its political dimensions could develop.

Materialism is certainly not just a tool. Even as a tool, it's successful use is intimately linked to truth. If it is, then I'd have to suppose that every ideology is just a tool which is obviously an absurdly reductionistic instrumentalist view. It is a system of concepts, ideas, beliefs, propositions, theories and methods used to describe, understand, explain, predict and control the properties and events of the natural and social world. Marxism, as the Proletarian stage of Science, applied to society, is intellectually and therefore practically revolutionary precisely because it gives a form of understanding which was not previously available to human societies about themselves, and finally allows us to truly move towards social freedom, namely where societies, as socialist and eventually communist, are no longer condemned to society seeming like some impersonal force before which we're passive, weak and helpless, but is something of which we are not only a part but also something which we can collectively, consciously, control and shape. That is precisely the reason why socialism is more advanced as a form of society than capitalism, other things being equal.

Materialism's most basic theoretical foundation is that there is independently existing, objective reality, which conforms most fundamentally in its properties to what we understand as or call the 'physical', and out of which emerges a type of entity capable of subjective, conscious thought, which is in turn not only ontologically dependent on the matter (or whatever you what to call it, as the conception of the physical in modern science goes far beyond the pretty crude idea of matter of intellectually bankrupt 19th century of modern 'vulgar materialism'). I'm not sure how much time you've actually spent with seriously militant Marxists if you think that Materialism is not a key part of their beliefs and identity. Dialectical and historical materialism are then further theoretical developments of this idea. Materialism is ancient, whereas the latter are modern developments that were not possible before modern science and the industrial revolution. If you wanted to reduce Historical Materialism to tool, then I guess the best candidate for its purpose would be 'ruthless critique of all that exists'.

We can say we need to be understanding as much as we like, and it's not false, but it remains a limited, abstract point if it doesn't then ask the question of what our understanding of religion as Marxists implies about the political status and potential of religion. This doesn't imply you are wrong when you say that there have to be political alliances with religious non-Marxists, but it does imply that as Marxists we never let out of sight the knowledge that those movements are held back in their possible development by those religious dimensions, though of course the latter are also partially but still significantly expressions of how the material conditions and historical context have seriously undermined the potential for socialist politics. Religious movements can serve historically progressive purposes, but they are fundamentally limited, and there is immense danger of hyper-reactionary theocratic backlash which is as effective at crushing communist movements as fascists are (not a coincidence, given there are A LOT of similarities between Islamism and Fascism).

Im not sure what you mean by 'impose atheism'. We are not in a position to materially impose atheism on anyone. Whether that should be done once we have a state is another question (edit: to clarify, we shouldn't, though politics must be resolutely secular), and people on here seem to often approve of it in the case of, say, China or the USSR, but immediately get sheepish when its discussed in relation to Islam, whereas it seems to me like the recent political history of Islam should make us less so. If you mean 'imposing' in the sense of stating clearly that those are our views, when then you are basically saying that Marxists have to sacrifice a view that is pretty key to our conception of the world and make a concession to false (if you think anyone flew on a winged horse one night to see God then you believe an absurdity) and often reactionary views in order to not alienate certain potential allies. Which is a very problematic position to hold in all honesty and i'm not sure how anyone who is actually a Marxist can think that.

QueerCommie , 7 months ago

Nice wall of text you got there, islamaphobe.

201dberg , 7 months ago

A few comments from the original Hexbear thread come to mind

1. "guy named Hakim from Iraq is Muslim, white people are shocked and appalled"

2. In speaking about religion in HAMAS and other resistance groups. "I for one am shocked that members of the Islamic Resistance Movement find value in an Islamic text."

Like seriously? We have people in this thread bringing into question The Deprogram crew for..... having a member be religious? Also because they interviewed people that aren't explicitly MLs? These guys that have done more to bring communist theory to more people than this entire instance. Lol stop acting like fucking ultras or whatever. I mean really? You all need to get a grip. Furthermore, expecting them to BE infallible while also complaining they act like the ARE infallible and the attacking them for that too? Please. Coming off like a bunch of wreckers. These guys have never claimed or acted like they are the gods of communism. They get on, discuss what they know, and give their opinions. Those opinions can be not always on point,and not always what you want to hear. It's your own deal if you expect them to be perfect then get pissed when they aren't.

A man can be both religious and a communist. He can also have a disagreeable point while having good intentions. And most importantly he can have flaws and still be an extremely important and beneficial person to the cause. The man is religious. He shares this religion with most of the people currently undergoing a fucking genocide. He probably feels more empathy towards them then most westerners do to their fucking next door neighbors. My heart burns for the Palestinians, I can only imagine how he must be feeling. Man probably understands the Palestinian culture and religions better than any of you. But please, tell me how you all, as non Muslims, probably white ass westerners, know so much better. I for one, am a white as westerner. Yet I am capable of at least understanding where he is coming from, even maybe disagreeing with him, without also attacking him as rabidly, and disgustingly, as some of you all have.

Honestly, after reading some of the gross over reactions and ridiculous attacks from this thread, I am legitimately ashamed of some of you. Like legitimately. Ashamed. Downvote me and attack me for saying so if it makes you feel better. That's fine. After some of the absurdity I have seen here I'll be happy to add some blocks to my list.

usernamesaredifficul , 7 months ago

Also religious belief can 100% motivate socialist beliefs. Take as two examples John Brown and Tony Benn

MeowZedong , 7 months ago

Existing forms of community, such as religious groups, also lend themselves well to socialism. Religious dogma is idealistic, but it feels reductive to ignore the motivation of belonging to and supporting a community when analyzing whether Marxism and religious beliefs are compatible.

There's evidence to support their compatibility as well as the damage religious groups can have on socialist causes. At the end of the day, I say more comrades is better.

usernamesaredifficul , 7 months ago

My thinking is this look at Catholicism, they adapted to Roman patronism, they adapted to feudalism, they adapted to capitalism, they'll adapt again with a new economic system

liberation theology could be to communism what calvinism was to capitalism

lckdscl , 7 months ago

People: want to learn more about Islam, ask for more reading materials on this topic.

Hakim: shares them, indicating that's what he personally read, with some source criticism.

People: refuse to read them and treat a youtube comment to be a Marxist analysis ripe for critique.

And to those who took issue with him being an "educator" and thus shouldn't do this: He's a minor e-celeb who makes videos, he's still a real person with his own worldview, just like the rest of us. He's not saying this is how Marxists should think, he's just sharing some books to better understand the context from his own point of view.

Neptium , 7 months ago

[Long post ahead]

Frankly, I was a bit confused at first at the responses to Hakim's supposed misdeed. I saw practically nothing wrong with his post.

This is speaking as someone who considers themself "ex-muslim" and rarely practices any of the daily rituals of being muslim.

I have read through both the Hexbear thread and this one here on Lemmygrad. Firstly, I would like to say I agree with Aru's comment on the other parallel thread running right now.

I'd like to address some of the contentions people have about the post. Hakim starts his post with this statement:

How do the Palestinian people persist? As muslims...

Not because they ARE muslims, as in, Islam was the only way in which they were able to carry out anti-colonial struggle, but rather they carry out the anti-colonial struggle through BEING muslim. Islam in this context is a material force, precisely because it is imbedded in the people - the colonized and the working classes, in their decision-making and power. It becomes entrenched in the material base.

It is in the masjid where muslims congregate and form communal bonds. It is in the masjid where people recieve their political and cultural education. It is the masjid that organizes the local community. It is in the masjid grounds in which people partake in the political economy.

To say that if Palestine was fully christian or any other "religion", they would still reject colonization, misses the point. It doesn't matter about some hypotheticals that you concoct in your head. That's as useful as saying that if China was 100% Christian they would still be communist - what is the point in engaging in idealist hypotheticals? To simply compare it to Christianity, is idealism. Because you are not comparing the reality in which these cultural traditions, epistemologies, and beliefs operate. You are comparing one idea to another, utterly deaf to the material context behind it. The material reality of the ummah, the material reality of Palestine, means that Islam is the force in which anti-imperialist and anti-colonialism is carried out.

So yes, perhaps for many muslims, the Quran, the life of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) becomes the starting point of their political conciousness, and to somehow call it immature, backward, or a type of "false consciousness", is to fall into the orientalist idealist tropes of the days of direct colonization.

Throughout the entire Islamic world we have seen numerous secular and communist organizations that directly collaborated with the colonizer, that never gained support from the muslim masses and that also had to face a visceral reactionary force funded by the West. To say that secular movements only failed in the Islamic world because they were being pitted against reactionary Western-funded movements ignores the fact that if these secular movements truly had the mandate of the people - truly did listen to the working masses, they would have succeeded in maintaining power in the first place.

To act like this analysis is somehow "idealism", when it is actually idealism to ignore history and material conditions in favour of a dogmatic secular understanding of class warfare.

Why is it when state secularism and athiesm is mentioned, we only mention those in AES, like the conditions of the ummah is somehow exactly one-on-one the same as that of China or the USSR? Why doesn't anyone ever mention about the beacon of liberal modernity and secularism - France - in which if you ask anyone in the ummah what they think about it, they would vehemently reject associating with that Islamophobic "secular" state. Why is it immediately assumed that when someones says they want an Islamic country, it is immediately assumed they want a monoreligious populace with forced conversions on heretics and heathens? Why is it assumed when we say something is Islamic, it means that it cannot involve people of other faiths (or lack thereof)?

In my eyes, the answer is simple. It is because the Western left still carries the mental burden of colonization, of cultural genocide, and they project it onto the global south - onto the ummah.

Are we suppose to ignore the Islamic influence of for example Southeast Asian foreign policy, Arab nationalism, or North African decolonization? How about the Islamic Axis of Resistance pushing back against the Zionist Entity and other US imperial projects in West Asia? Islamic socialism and Islam has been, and continues to be, materially closer to anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism and communism than Western Marxism could ever even dream about (that is - if they even recognize imperialism). Islam is the form that the anti-imperialist essence of the ummah takes.

Is it the "muh slems" that are idealistic, or is it the Western's left misunderstanding of the "unity of opposites"? If you can only percieve reality in absolutes, in black-and-white, then "religion" is always "immaterial"; that means you will be unable to identify your friends from your enemies and it also means you will never understand Islam and the ummah.

Doubledee , 7 months ago

I'm happy you said something. I think it's also clear from the text that he's not being chauvinistic (he makes purposeful allusion to important figures in Judaism and Christianity and clearly considers them all part of the struggle) and I think there's tactical value to taking the wind out of the sails of Islamophobic depictions of the struggle by helping provide context. Maybe there's room for criticism but I think he's doing more here than he is being credited for.

Or maybe I just wanna defend my video friend.

doccitrus , 7 months ago

The first time I read this comment, I started to write a reply but then realized that I'm not totally sure what you mean in some places, and I figured it would be better to ask than just assume.

Islam in this context is a material force, precisely because it is imbedded in the people - the colonized and the working classes, in their decision-making and power. It becomes entrenched in the material base.

What do you have in mind with the notion of 'entrenchment' here?

It is in the masjid where muslims congregate and form communal bonds. It is in the masjid where people recieve their political and cultural education.

How does this distinguish the masjid from superstructural institutions generally, like schools or mass media?

It is in the masjid grounds in which people partake in the political economy.

What does this mean? That the masjid is an employer? That it's a marketplace? Or just that it carries out the functions of the state in Islamic societies?

Why is it when state secularism and athiesm is mentioned, we only mention those in AES, like the conditions of the ummah is somehow exactly one-on-one the same as that of China or the USSR?

To be clear here, 'the' ummah extends to everywhere Islam is believed or practiced? Or does it mean instead something more like 'Muslim countries'?

Islam is the form that the anti-imperialist essence of the ummah takes.

To make sure I understand what you mean here, Is this a fair (equivalent) restatement or does it miss some things?

in the ummah, anti-imperialism takes the form of Islam

StalinForTime , 7 months ago

Yeh their post is so confused and unclear its difficult to even beging to parse and deconstruct it.

StalinForTime , 7 months ago

Honestly this post reminds me that there a lot of people using the revolutionary language and history of Marxism to justify their own nationalism or other views which are not those of internationalist Marxism or Communism.

Yes religion is idealistic. Idealism in the history of Marxist use can mean both ontological idealism, in which one thinks that the only or most fundamental components of what exists has the basic properties of the mental; and epistemic idealism, where the explanation of certain events or properties is based first and foremost on ideas, in which ideas are given priviledge of explanation, rather than what those ideas are ideas of. Someone can be ontologically idealist on paper while acting like an (epistemic) idealist in their reasoning, of which many liberals are perfect examples. Of course, for a genuine materialists, ideas do also in a sense reduce to matter, while also emerging out of matter, and so are types or expressions of new properties which emerge out of very complex forms of matter. You do give a good example of epistemic idealism, which is people ignoring the historical and more specifically the religious context of these countries in which national liberation movements are active. However it is equally idealist to ignore the profoundly reactionary implications of a group being Islamist (as opposed to, say, simply being a group most or all of whose members are Muslims). I don't think anyone is implying that the political role, influence or importance of religion is to be ignored here. If anything it is the opposite. Though it seems you are implying they are in order to imply their view of what that significance is is incorrect, contrary to your own I'm guessing.

You are also introducing an unjustified exclusivity between (1) Islam being idealist (which you haven't made clear what you mean), but is most definitely when we are talking about the ontological content of Islamic beliefs and the kind of religious reasoning that is based on it; and (2) westerners not understanding the 'unit of opposites', which seems to be to just be a force of relativist mysticism; if you mean that is no such thing as truth or a correct view. This is not Marxism (a modernist ideology). This is simply another expression of postmodern relativism. If here you mean that have to recognize that there are potentially progressive aspects with non-preferable components such as strong religious ideology, then sure, that is something to be recognized. Islam is a material phenomenon, like every other religion, because it exists in the social world. But the actual beliefs, the content of it, are not materialist. Materialism is not the same thing as something being material. This is just a confusion of what different words mean.

An irony is that you yourself are essentializing Islam (or maybe it only seems so due to the lack of clarity in what you saying) by claiming that it 'is the form which the anti-imperialist struggle takes form'. Reactionary groups can oppose Imperialists. This is not a mystery. And assuming that because they do that they must be progressive is precisely the kind of 'absolute, black and white' mystifications you are accusing others of committing. There are plenty of non-Islamic, non-religious liberation struggles, and again there is a great difference between a movement containing religious people, and the movement being religious in character. Every Islamic or Islamist revolution has been a reactionary nightmare, for the people in general and the left in particular. The vast majority of genuinely progressive and successful revolutionary movements in recent history have been secular communist ones, notably of national liberation in the global south.

Marxists in many non-Western societies are often far more explicitly anti-religious in private than the sheepish left of the West, who are terrified of losing their virtue-signalling points. One example is Haiti: when I've spoken with Haitian comrades, they are fully conscious of the reactionary potential of religion, because they are in a society in which religion (whether in the form of Christianity of Voudou) is an immense obstacle and impediment for communist education, radicalization and organization. We are not going to bring people into the communist fold by ignoring reactionary views they hold or not attacking them. If anything, the fetishism of Islam extending into one of Islam, on a supposedly Marxist forum no-less, is an expression of the fact that these individuals actually almost certainly have no experience of organizing politically as Communists, let alone in the countries they are talking about.

Islamic socialism is certainly better than no socialism at all, and you are completely correct that white western atheists absolutely and completely condemning these movements purely on that basis is chauvinistic and ignorant, that is nevertheless completely irrelevant to any discussion of the political nature of religion, and there are certain fairly unavoidable conclusions on that front when we scientifically analysis the historical and contemporary evidence as Marxists. It's not clear to me how anything you'd said impacts in any way any serious discussion of the political nature of religion in general and particular religions specifically. Not all religions are equal, but there are sufficient similarities (hence using the common term 'religion') for us to be able to start making more general theorizations and conclusions about it. This includes the how religions function politically and influence politics in different contexts.

Another issue here is that no-one is making a distinction between Islam and Islamism, which is particularly ironic in a thread with a couple self-flagellating white westerners virtue-signalling other their desire to understand the religion of the downtrodden and avoid Islamophobia.

Regarding this:

"In my eyes, the answer is simple. It is because the Western left still carries the mental burden of colonization, of cultural genocide, and they project it onto the global south - onto the ummah."

It seems equally obvious to me that this is a giant jump in reasoning. I'm not really seeing the evidence here. This is also, again, ignoring the massive elephant in the room of Islamism. Fear of Islamism is the most rational emotional response to have towards it. Anyone who says otherwise has not lived in Islamist societies, does not understand Islamism and its both its differences with and intimate connections to Islam more broadly. This whole discussion is also again a reminder which angers me immensely that most Marxists from these parts of the world are not having their views discussed very clearly, and is ignoring that the vast majority of communists who have lived under Islamism understand that it is an extremely reactionary ideology that makes life misery. By far the most anti-theist people I have ever met are my Communist friends and comrades from and in the Islamic world, and most of all the Iranians. You seem to me to be giving a clearly idealist explanation here. The form of anti-imperialist politics is deeply influenced Islam and Islamism because these are deeply religious societies in which secularism and notably the secular left failed, and because they are responses to the correctly perceived, widespread racism and Islamophobia of the West, because many people in their suffering, misery and alienation turn to religion as a consolation that becomes essential and precious in their lives, and because modern Islamism explicitly formed itself on a conception of politics similar to the Leninist clandestine party organization, aiming for mass radicalization where they would take advantage of the radical energy of mass movements and direct them for reactionary ends, very similarly to Fascism.

On the France point, which I can speak to as having lived there, it is correct that the form of 'secularism' practiced as policy by the French government is not only inconsistent in its application to Muslims compared to Christians, and thus does not live up to the ideal of secularism which should be aimed for, but is deeply and structurally discriminatory in its application. Going from the fact that French secularism is racist, to the conclusion that secularism is racist, is like realizing that a square in front of you is red, then seeing a red circle, and saying that the circle is square. The French state is racist, but that does not imply in any way that we should not be secularists in our policies. Religious justifications have no place in a Communist party. Period. End of discussion.

PoY , 7 months ago

this was already posted before but i don't think you can discount the role religion plays in giving people a source of hope and strength where there otherwise isn't any. Maybe you could do the same thing another way, but I'm at a loss as to how. We all know that religion plays a large part in the lives of a large portion of the world population.

It's obviously not the a ONLY reason they fight back but it doesn't hurt the cause at all imo.