[Marxism] Al Queda
donaloc at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 24 03:44:03 MST 2004
> Well, I don't know about the PKK, but I do totally disagree with Louis
For once, we totally agree.
>(Interestingly, it is people like her who are now central
leaders of SF.)
Politicos, politicos...Ask our mutual friend about that issue...
> In fact, it is impossible to wage a national liberation struggle
bombs going off. The reason that the FI (and the rest of the Trotskyist
currents) have never led a national liberation struggle is in no small
part due to their lack of understanding of the role of revolutionary
violence in such situations.
Again, I agree. The only thing is that it is impossible to win a
national liberation struggle without politics and the correct
relationship to the support-base. I thought that Trotsky understood
this. I am surprised his adherents do not. Perhaps I am not too
surprised. I can't speak for any specific FI current - but I thought
some of them understood this. I expect that opportunists such as the ISO
would get it wrong but there are more serious groups.
> When part of Ireland was under imperialist occupation a movement which
failed to utilise forms of armed struggle, including bombs, was never
going to be taken seriously by the oppressed. This is why Trotksyists
in Ireland recruited school teachers and social workers, while the
worst-off sections of workers joined the various wings of the Republican
Movement and the Republican Socialist Movement. (The exception was
Militant, which attracted some workers in the South on economistic
politis, but which failed to amke any real headway in the nationalist
working class ghettoes in the north).
I should also mention rural, small farmers as membership core. If you
returned you wouldn't find that much had changed. Mostly the same
people - particularly here in the 6Cs. Occasionally, we get some good
functionaries but the situation is similar.
> Bombs in the Irish struggle could never *win* the struggle, but the
struggle itself was not possible without them. Bloody Sunday was the
proof of this and the hunger strikes merely proved it doubly.
> None of this in any way legitimises Al-Qaeda, who are *not* a
movement and has nothing poltically in common with any liberation
I think that your definition is a little too narrow e.g. confined to a
geographical unit. Liberation has a social and cultural value to it
also. In a sense, Islam - which is more than a religion - is under
attack both ideologically, militarily and structurally.
I was reading Fidel last night. A speech of his from 1988. Worth
re-reading. Anyhow, he said that Peace for the third world meant
something different to peace in the Empire and Imperial Centres. In a
sense, that's how I see it. I got a lot out of what Tony Abdo said. They
only talk about the terrorism of the act in their world. They never see
the terrorism of the structures and their military empire in ours. This
is not one-sided terrorism but a mutual war of extermination. Either the
West takes its foot off the throat of the third world or the third world
will rip the foot off, sinews and all. The only question to me is how
best to do this.
If you think that bombs aren't necessary go back to Fanon. They just
More information about the Marxism