Jihad and Revolution in Chechnya

Julio Pino jpino at SPAMkent.edu
Thu Aug 10 13:38:10 MDT 2000


At 03:49 PM 8/9/00 -0700, you wrote:
>> Freedom for Chechnya in 2000!
>> Julio Cesar
>
>What does this mean?
It means that I support the right of the Chechen people to independence,
which is what they clearly want, and that this can only be accomplished
under the banner of Islam.
I'd like to address several points raised  by both, Comrades Macdonald, and
Owen with regards to Chechnya and Islamic resistance to imperialism.
1.That the Chechens are responsible for terrorist operations inside Russia
is believed by the Russian Ministry of the Interior, and nobody else. Don't
you find it odd that when Putin launched his invasion of Chechnya the
bombings suddenly stopped? You think Putin and his gang are incapable of
killing  Russian civilians?
2. You want me to believe that the Chechen rebels are pawns of the American
and German bourgeosie because Covert Action says so? These are the same
bozos who think AIDS is a product of US army biological warfare. Now we've
moved from Marxism to conspiratology.But let's say for the sake of argument
the rebels are receiving funds from the USA and the FRG.Who gives a
monkey's... Fidel took money from former Cuban president and full-time
crook Prio Socorro to launch the Granma expedition in 1956. Lazaro Cardenas
sold oil to Hitler and Mussolini to break the American blockade of Mexican
petroleum.I understand the FARC taxes drug dealers in Colombia. Who cares
where the money comes from as long as the struggle is just. Which brings me
to...
3.The Chechens do not politically resemble nor do they support the KLA or
even the Bosnian Muslim leadership. Quite the opposite. The rebel command
condemned the NATO attack on Yugoslavia as an act of "imperialist
hypocrisy", and the Bosnian Muslim puppet government installed by NATO has
suppressed pro-Chechen demonstrations in Sarajevo.Not a single Arab regime
has come out in support of the Jihad in Chechnya, while the Pakistani
generals deeply fear its spread into their country.For documentation on the
rebels' foreign policy, check-out the Chechen website at
http://www.qoqaz.net/

4. "No one needs to be told what an anti-progressive Putin is." That's like
saying Der Fuhrer was a little bit wrong on the Jewish question.Putin is a
racist pig and anti-semite. Owen is absolutely right; Putin instigated this
war to whip up chauvinist hysteria to uphold a collapsing capitalist order
threatened by the Russian proletariat, and to score points with Clinton and
Blair for "what a tough guy he is", deserving of our suppport.
5.Why are the Chechen rebels "clerical fascists"? The first part of this
odd couplet is literally wrong since Islam has no clergy.This is not a
point of semantics.The rebels have no plans and have taken no steps to
create a theocracy. Perhaps you meant to draw an anology to Slovakia under
Father Tiso or Croatia under the Ustasha. But these were creatures of Nazi
imperialism blessed by the Vatican. Did they enjoy any popular support? The
Chechens have fought off the Russian army twice now, with wide-scale
civilian help.It can't be just the imans in Chechnya who want to fight.
6.Why use the term "fascist", unless you mean it as a synonym for "bad." Do
the Chechens proclaim  racial superiority over other peoples? Are they
planning to invade and conquer all neighboring lands? (The Russian Ministry
of Defense believes this, nobody else does.)Are they planning to set up a
corporate state beholden to high finance capital?
7.Why not extend this terminology? Is HAMAS fascist? How about the FIS in
Algeria? Or the Hezbollah in Kashmir? Is a "clerical fascist" any Muslim
with an AK-47? Isn't Israel a "clerical fascist" state? ( I'd answer that
one in the affirmative). How about the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam,
fighting to carve out a separate Hindustani state in "Sri Lanka". Better
yet, why not hurl this insult at the Vatican, which helped Nazis escape
justice after WWII and practices its own brand of gender apartheid.
8."'Islam'" is, of course, reactionary." Why the quotation marks?
"Catholicism","Protestantism", and even "atheism"are rectionary too,
because anything can be considered reactionary in the abstract.Camilo Torre
was a devoted Catholic who gave his life for the Colombian
guerrilla.Gorbachev is a sincere atheist who sold out the USSR.Making a
revolution in the Muslim world, including Chechnya, is impossible without
using Islam (without the quotation marks) for a bedrock; just like no Latin
American revolution can succeed unless it takes nationalism as its starting
point.That doesn't make nationalism progressive or reactionary, just
useful. The first step in making a revolution in the Former Soviet Union is
to make the year 2000 a hell for Russian soldiers in Chechnya and force
Ivan to go home.
Comradely,and may Allah bless you both,
Julio Cesar






More information about the Marxism mailing list