[Marxism] Islamist, Socialist revolutions do not mix

John Obrien causecollector at msn.com
Fri Oct 5 17:38:07 MDT 2007

Are Some poor and working people, more important than other poor and working people?
Why do some marxists want poor and working people to play musical chairs with their lives?
Could it be in the year 2007 that some people who label themselves as Marxists and emphatically state they care for working people, but it turns out - they do not care for ALL working people?
A poor woman in Iran or even a poor Lesbian in Iran, does not merit support, as compared to the important male president of Iran (who has more power), because he is SUPPOSEDLY challenging U. S. rule. History has shown that the Iranian regime currently in power has made a number of deals with U. S. imperialism and their allied governments (Contra-gate, War on Taliban, etc.)  
Long before the current conflict between the governments of the United States and Iran - there was little concern, for poor women and particulalry poor Lesbians in Iran. This has also been true in the United States and many other countries in the world.
Working people who want control over their bodies, insisting on birth control, abortions, condoms and whom they choose to have sexual relations with - are not liked by many non-marxists, because of racial, gender, sexual, age and disabled biases - based on various religious cult views, that are against scientific facts and reality and against a view of caring for people.
Some of these faith held beliefs, urged that disabled people should be disriminated against - should marxists respect that view and not challenge it?  For example - at sometime in most people's lives, they will become disabled to some degree.  Are we saying that this discrimination is wrong - but the others maintained by the same prejudice, are to be tolerated?  Should marxists pick and choose which working people lives should be improved - or should we build the class and strengthen the whole - to form a mightier weapon, against our common oppressors 
It is the duty of marxists to break down discrimiantion that DIVIDES working people - not just SOME working people.  There have been some marxists, who believed the value of white males was greater and should have their humanity defended, but that women, People of Color, Gays and disabled - are expendable and do not need to be defended - or their lives uplifted to be stronger and thus strengthen the working class.
We have seen sadly the justification for this usually around "what is more important".  This was said to justify many times the continuing discrimination and oppression of various working people who were "unpopular" - as compared to what others saw "as popular".
Of course, we must ALL oppose any military attack by the United States and/or its allies, against Iran - because such attacks will injure Iraninan working people.  These attacks are also done to intimidate others, who might desire to not go along with the U. S. Empire's rule.  But this does not mean we should be supporting some Islamic Religious current and their rules and regulations, against working people in that country.  
We should be able to both oppose all efforts and demands by the U. S. government and its client states on coercing other nations, for the benefit of those seeking control of resources and lives - AND in still being principled in opposing the oppression and division of the working class.
In recent times, I have seen speakers being added at anti-war rallies, in many countries who are representatives of various  nonmarxist Islamic currents - but I have not seen any balance of Gay or woman speakers added to these stages - to focus on the ongoing special oppression they suffer in such places as Iraq, etc.  It seems the Islamic speakers were added to show opposition about racism aimed at Arab and Muslim people - but in not having speakers speak on Gays being murdered in Iraq, the message seems to be clear - Some oppressions and some working people are more important than others? We do not want to embarass a speaker from a religious cult, who is asking to not be discriminated against - by having "those people" on the same platform?
Perhaps a way to break down ignorance and for people to learn in what we all have in common, is by uniting and not harming each other.  This should be the more important message for REAL permanent change and not keep going around like musical chairs, with what group today is the focus and will be lucky to get a chair and who will not!
Supporting divisions and overlooking oppression - is NOT what is to be done!
John O'Brien
> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:19:04 -0400> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Islamist, Socialist revolutions do not mix> > ML, I'm not challenging the truth of your aside, but it leaves me a> little uncomfortable. 
> When we use the term "religious right", do we> mean political authoritarians who happen to harness religion to their> agenda, or do we mean people of a conservative religious faith who> instinctively gravitate to the political right simply because that is> the only people raising the kind of issues of concern to them?> > I could go on, but my aim here is only to suggest we be careful when> we use terms such as "religious right"; that we not too quickly assume> a close functional relationship between political and religious views;> that we not assume too quickly that the outlook of religious right is> lunatic, monolithic or insensitive to the contradictions of> capitalism.> > -- > > Haines Brown, KB1GRM> > > > 

More information about the Marxism mailing list