/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Good post. Never knew this

>>1834063
Leftist MENAoid here as well, I've come to the conclusion that the only way socialism could make a comeback in this region is if it's Islamic Socialism. Arab nationalism as an ideology is dead and buried, probably for the best. The only way to ignite the fires of revolution within the working class is to use Islam as the guiding vehicle but to make sure it doesn't fall under the control of reactionary theocrats like it did in Iran. Islamism as an ideology will never die despite the repression by Arab governments, it's the most realistic ideology to start revolutions here again and as such it must be headed by socialists.

Glowie above me. Don't reply.

>>1834076
>>1834077
Not a glowie you schizo, there is no sincere possibility for a socialist revolution to start in this region unless Islam is used to gripe the hearts of the workers, nationalism as a dream to push socialism here died in the 20th century with the ba'ath party coups. You have to think of the future and not the past.

>>1834073
They tried that in Pakistan too with the whole Riyasat e Madina thing and the end result is that many of the social welfare programmes remain blocked in the Pakistani parliament while the reactionary sufi clergy was allowed to run rampant with their militias and nearly toppled the government.
I think that's the main problem with coalition building in general. You need to have a strong party infrastructure in place so that your supposed coalition partner, be it the clergy or liberals or trade unions don't just backstab you or you'd end up being killed by your supposed ally like Rosa Luxemnurg

>>1834073
>ayat al ta3a
>implying your islamo-socialist revolution won't be instantly appropriated by mutawwa3een kilab and accomplish nothing except tatbee2 el hegab w mnoo3 el 5amr

Islam is a fucking terrible substrate for a worker revolution, Im tired of this meme. Habibi you need to accept the bitter truth: the only way to MENA socialism is through liberalism first. It sucks but there's no other way.

>>1834133
>the only way to MENA socialism is through liberalism first
nta but kys

>>1834142
Please convince me that I'm wrong. I'm not happy about it

>>1834147
I shit on Islamists all the time but I don't get the reddit tier hyperfixation on religion. MENA republics have already proven capable of being secular and socially progressive. While much of that progress was lost due to neoliberalism and war, their degradation of our socioeconomic conditions. it remains evident that our societies were capable of modernizing relatively quickly through decolonial struggle.

Assad is based, you’re a CIA faggot.

>>1834211
You're IRGCuck shitslamist who stumbled his way to a leftist board.

>>1834080
Workers of the world, unite! The bourgeois states are one against the proletariat!*
*except in Palestine, Iran, Syria, Russia, China, South Africa, Syria, Iraq, Belarus, North Korea, and everywhere that isn't the United States or Europe.

>>1834158
Communism isn't about bourgeois governments being "socially progressive".

>>1834133
All these countries are already fully capitalist. What the fuck are you talking about?

>>1834226
What does that have to do with MENA being supposedly irredeemable backwards religious shithole?

>>1834220
Leftists support Assad. You’re glowing.

>>1834242
>genociding the syrian left good cuz muh third worldist neoliberal bourgeoisie multipolar something something
Yeah "leftists"

Zased comrade Kissinger! One struggle against the Syrian proletarian. Long live the free market!

It's a good thing I have this comment handy (https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/ts5f3g/comment/i3nv4fo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). I wanted to leave it here, cause I think it's some useful information.

>>1834063
Didnt know Assad family was backed by porkies to overthrow communists.

islamic gommunism thread
>>1834073
I think Hakim has made similar points. you're not going to get anywhere in Muslim countries by acting like a reddit tier atheist

>>1834327
Yes, Assad was allied with the local bourgeoisie, the military bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie that dominated Syria. Not sure if foreign capital was involved though.
>>1834329
>Islamic "communism"
Already denounced that shit.

>>1834332
it's a reference to picrel

>>1834333
kek

>>1834332 (Me)
>Not sure if foreign capital was involved though.
I'm talking about the coup. No doubt Assad was wheeling and dealing with the porkiest of them following his neoliberal reforms.

>>1834329
Exactly, ideas like atheism or nationalism are nowadays unappealing to your average joe in MENA. Anyone who wants to seriously talk about bringing socialism to MENA has to first acknowledge the importance that Islam has in these societies and how anything that portrays itself as antagonistic to Islam won't even enter a foothold there.

>>1834446
You couldn't be more wrong.
Here in Iraq our Islamist ruling clique has been recently seeking to rebrand itself as "secular" and "progressive" following the 2019 protests that demanded an end to political Islam. There are new parties formed in the latest elections that are literally named "Progress" and "The Secular State". It's the same old corrupt sectarian stooges trying to appeal to the younger generation. The elections are already bought and sold but maintaining some degree of precevied legitimacy is always needed. This shift in rhetoric alone should tell you how much influence they're losing. People are sick of this crap. While I don't believe a movement that is explicitly atheist would be too popular, no doubt attacking the clergy and the religious political establishment is fair game, and encouraged even.

>>1834158
>>1834329
>>1834446
'Reddit-tier' religion hyperfixation is cringe because redditors live in secular western democracies and the only religious friction they experience is mom making them go to church sometimes.

What's actually cringe is using this label on MENA leftoids, who literally go to jail for criticizing religion. In our countries, islamists have immense, tangible impacts on the social fabric. Women and religious minorities (including minor muslim sects, and secularists) are widely disenfranchised, and this is justified by islamic reasoning. You're not going to have real socialism in MENA if even remotely basic egalitarian tenets are missing. Why should women sign on? Christians? Shias? Gays? The growing fraction of irreligious?

Islam is actually a divisive influence, not unifying. Look at how many civil wars it's caused. I agree that Islam has a huge impact on MENA culture, which is precisely why I just can't see MENA socialism until that changes.

>>1834490
>no doubt attacking the clergy and the religious political establishment is fair game, and encouraged even.
I'm referring to the people not the establishment. Of course you should learn to doge bullets before doing so.

>>1834503
Hakim is CIA
>complete opposite
How? He encouraged moderation when dealing with religion, as do I. Don't go around screaming plebbit talking points while tipping your fedora and you should be fine. I'm just totally against communism with le Islamic characteristics, as secular progressive change is 100% tenable. Young people (who are the majority) yearn for it. If the next rising tide in Iraq won't be socialism it would be secular liberal democracy. There won't be any Islamic revolution here any time soon.

>>1834530
>the theory in question
Hakim made 6 videos encouraging people to read a gorilion different Che biographies while only 1 (one) video recommending theory. He is a revisionist radlib.

>>1834537
ok now you're just baiting

>>1834073
i dont have anything against religious communists or religion-as-such in general, but i dont think ive ever seen an example of a formally religious socialist party that 1. had any significant measure of success 2. maintained a coherent ideological line

i think even just simply for purposes of recruitment, the 1st is a problem because people alienated with religion will go to secular groups, and people who are heavily politically motivated while maintaining their faith are just demographically far less likely to be sympathetic to socialism/communism, let alone committing to joining and working within such a party. im not saying its unprecedented or never happens, but those are real challenges. as for point 2 i think communism needs to be materialist, and while that doesnt preclude individual communists being religious, when you think there is a divine basis for morals and ideals, things get really weird in terms of theory

>>1834327
also fully cooperated with the US during the early "war on terror." these things got memory holed on /leftypol/ by the infighting/banning during the syrian civil war, but the point stands that "critical support" is supposed to be critical, and that doesnt negate the recognition of the existing position of e.g. assads syria as being aggressively targeted by US imperialism

>>1834687
>also fully cooperated with the US during the early "war on terror."
Source? I thought they only did during the Gulf War. Although I'm aware that Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies cooperated with the US at the time.

>>1834701
Didn't know that. Appreciate it.

>13 IPs
What a fucking waste. Should've posted another le epic /idpol/ bait instead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_Muhammad_Taraki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafizullah_Amin
Since we're on the topic of revolutions being betrayed, what the hell happened in Afghanistan? It seems pretty bleak, watching as two socialist leaders kill each other and having a full-scale invasion that would lead to the fall of the Afghanistan government.

Assad could be a baby eating fascist and he would still be better than this literally who because he did not get overthrown.
t. average online ML

>>1836437
Not being overthrown is very important.

>>1834087
>They tried that in Pakistan too with the whole Riyasat e Madina thing and the end result is that many of the social welfare programmes remain blocked in the Pakistani parliament while the reactionary sufi clergy was allowed to run rampant with their militias and nearly toppled the government
While I'm wading into unfamiliar territory, it looks to me like the Muslim world is in a cycle where the rulers are usually the most corrupted and least faithful Muslims and violate every single rule to enjoy their lives, but they demand the lower class to stay faithful to prevent potential struggles and uprisings. However, once the oppression of the lower classes reaches its limit, the imams whom the rulers rely on utilize Islam as a tool to lead the lower class in an uprising because they claim that all the problems are caused by the rulers' failure to obey the true Islam. Once the imams succeed, they become the rulers and then the new circle of corruption begins.

One problem with this is the idea that Islam doesn't need reform and Islam is perfect. And while it's easy to say "let's do secular nationalism" instead, that brings another problem that goes beyond their control: which is the intervention from the superpowers. But then there you go with religious fundamentalism again which splits the Arab world. It kind of prevents them from being united. In fact, Islamists have been partly supported by the West from time to time (although that's an oversimplification).

Main thing is that all of these ideologies are made-up things by humans. They can be used one way, or flipped upside down and then flipped right back up. Countries can move to their opposites and lurch from one extreme to another. It doesn't seem unbelievable to me that there would be a secular uprising in a country that had an Islamist one in the past.

>>1836530
That mostly applies to Gulf monarchies. They're not only being kept down by the clergy alone but rather their labour has been outsourced and a welfare state was instated. The native workers in the rich gulf countries have been de-proletarianized and made passive consumers by a totalitarian semi-feudl state. Such conditions have prevented the people from developing civil society unlike places like Syria and Iraq. Even in the event of social liberalisation which the Saudi regime is attempting to open itself for more markets, progressive notions will not take off under these material conditions, it would just be a new status quo imposed top-down. There is also a misconception that these countries are le trad when in reality their culture have been reshaped by foreign capital into globalized consoomerslop. Just look up Christmas in Qatar for example. They're not really an anomaly like most people think, just capitalism under a different facade.

I believe the only hope of a worker revolution in these states are 1. Slave revolts by the foreign workers 2. Disaster socialism (using crisis to enact progressive change)

MENA leftism has always been a failure because it came from a place of deep dishonesty. Leftists in Arab countries were virtually all members of the secular upper or middle class elite with connections the colonial establishment (even if they opposed it). Outside of a place like Iraq, there was no grassroots organic workers movement linked to the CPs. So what you have is essentially is an exploitater class appropriating leftist discourse, which is otherwise not in their class interests, against the "backward" impoverished masses as a means of social control. Islamism became popular because it was a much more organic, grassroots movement, that pushed back against secular elitism. Many famous Islamists were people who flirted with the left but never joined because they felt ostracized for their religion. In that sense, Islamism represents an authentic movement rooted in the lower classes of Muslim countries. Its a simple product of the material conditions and relations of power that define many Arab and Muslim states.

The secular vs religious divide, which in many ways is a class divide, is why the MENA left will never move anywhere. They are far too fixated on beating the Islamists, wedded to discredited pseudo-orientalist theories, obsessed with religion through which they read the entire history and politics of the region like a naive idealist and most of all they hate ordinary people and see them as inferior. They have little to no legitimacy with the vast majority of ordinary people and have no interest in that anyway. MENA leftists never do any real analysis, they just copy paste from dusty old leftist publications written in the 19th century. They need to take a look at Marx's letter to Vera Zasulich. There isn't a MENA leftist today who could give you a description of property relations in the Ottoman period, or theories of sovereignty in Islamic thought, or really anything else, the standard bread and butter analysis Western leftists have done for years. They are really anti-intellectual and culturally sectarian and totally stagnant.

I'll end with some comments of Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, a Marxist activist during the Iranian revolution who's now a history professor at Princeton. He said that MENA leftists are basically "Enlightenment secular fundamentalists" who see Middle Eastern history as a struggle between secular liberal/progressive forces and the dark reactionary forces, which they typically identify with Islam. They are basically social darwinists who see Arabs and Iranians as human failures who couldn't absorb progressive practices from the West and they also create an absolute binary between Islamists and the left. Yet if you look at the Iranian revolution, many leftists were devout Shia/Sufi Muslims, many of Khomeini's followers were leftists, many of the so-called clergy (Islamic scholars) were admirers of Marx, Nietzsche, and Hegel, and even Khomeini borrowed leftist ideas and tried to glue them to Sufi mysticism, and Foucualt was invited to the seminaries at Qom to meet the Ayatollahs. Even today, Al-Qaeda ideologues praise Marx and Gramsci and experiment with postmodern thought in a way their leftist counterparts in the region never do. What makes Islamism special (and at that time successful) was that it was able to defy history. i.e. the idea that human life is pre-determined by causal laws of progress instead of human agency. Islamists simply disregarded the Western idea that a democratic republic had to be secular and tried to build their own reality. It was a profound moment where ordinary people took control and exercised their own human agency against Western and secular ideas of how the world ought to be. In that sense, they were the most creative and genuinely revolutionary force that pushed boundaries the same way French and Russian revolutionaries did before them.

The future will probably belong to those movements that successfully synthesize Islamist and socialist thought building on the revolutionary conditions of the past few decades creating an kind of new left that doesn't have the same secular fundamentalist hang ups and is actually grassroots.

>>1836643
Islamists are liberal.

>>1834063
Wasn’t this literally what happened to Qasim of Iraq

>>1836643
The masses of people are bound to be more progressive than their despots who are inherently reactionary, as their bourgeois interests lays with the status quo. This is especially true at the height of material contradictions. In monarchist Iraq for example, the ruling class was ostensibly secular yet it was still semi-feudal backwards clique of ethno-sectarian compradors that led the country to destitution and illiteracy while empowering local landlords and foreign monopolies. Who brought revolutionary change to Iraq? It was the peasants and workers, the toiling masses from the most underdeveloped, exploited and religious parts of the country, many with class consciousness. It is indeed wrong to think in such an idealist way, reducing material conditions to a reductive dichotomy. This is still a far cry from communist theocracy and other ridiculous notions.

>>1836643
>many of Khomeini's followers were leftists, many of the so-called clergy (Islamic scholars) were admirers of Marx, Nietzsche, and Hegel, and even Khomeini borrowed leftist ideas and tried to glue them to Sufi mysticism

anywhere i can read about this?

>>1836718
It's bullshit
Khomeini wasn't a fucking Sufi lol

>>1836643
What a load of horseshit
You're basically taking the "le real working class is le racist" burger rightoid talking points and projecting them onto an area of 20+ different countries.
You start with the typical orientalist assumption that some imaginary, monolithic "Islam" is the cause of everything and anything that happens in that region, so secularism obviously has to be a foreign colonial import and Islamism the natural expression of the people, nevermind the fact that the revivalist type of Islam preached by Islamists is often a radical departure from the traditional religious forms in these countries.

>>1836718
Check out Ghamari-Tabrizi's book Foucault in Iran and Hamid Dabashi's Theology of Discontent which goes over the main thinkers of the revolution. You could also take a look at some of Foucault's Iran reports and his discussion of how the Sufi martyr al-Hallaj was turned into a revolutionary figure. There's this lecture that's a good overview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDkU0VMhx94&pp=ygUPR2hhbWFyaSBUYWJyaXpp

If you want a good overview of Khoemini himself I'd recommend the book A Critical Introduction to Khomeini. There's also part of this article that discusses Mutahhari's use of Hegel and his rivalry with Ali Shariati
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nathan-coombs-christian-communists-islamic-anarchists#toc10

>>1836889
Khomeini was trained in Irfan (theoretical Sufism) and wrote mystical poems and a commentary on Ibn Arabi's works. He even gave public radio lectures on Sufism after the revolution and recommended communists read Ibn Arabi in his letter to Gorbachev.

>>1836900
>You're basically taking the "le real working class is le racist" burger rightoid talking points
I didn't say that at all. If anything, its MENA leftists who believe that themselves. i.e. Arabs and Muslims are distinctively unmodern and backward. This is caused by Islam and traditional culture and hence some measure of cultural Westernization and liberalization are either a prerequisite for or essential to the process of revolution. These are basically colonial orientalist, self-orientalizing, attitudes. You see Arab liberals make the same kinds of arguments e.g. Muslims are incapable of culturally understanding democracy because such a concept doesn't exist in Arabic culture so they have to mature as people first or some stupid bullshit like this.

>You start with the typical orientalist assumption that some imaginary, monolithic "Islam" is the cause of everything and anything that happens in that region, so secularism obviously has to be a foreign colonial import and Islamism the natural expression of the people.
I didn't attribute anything to a monolithic Islam. Your just parroting buzzwords now. Islamic movements are grassroots while leftist organizations are typically elitist and dominated by members of the secular middle classes fluent in English or French. This is not how the left developed in Germany or France or even the US. It wasn't a top down movement led by people educated in foreign customs and language who were hostile to poor people while fetishizing them at the same time. Islamist groups are a product of the class relations and power relations in their respective societies and just as socialist movements became the expression of the European working class in the 19th century, so Islamist movements have developed as a populist expression of working class and rural resentment in the Middle East. To say Islamism is 100% a product of magical "reactionary forces" is sheer idealism. Its not based on any material or historical analysis.

>so secularism obviously has to be a foreign colonial import
You'd be hard pressed to find any sane historian who'd say that secularism is native to the region. Its a specific ideology that has its roots in 18th century European bourgeois Enlightenment.

>>1837130
>Muslims are incapable of culturally understanding democracy because such a concept doesn't exist in Arabic culture
No real MENA leftist has ever claimed that about anything. Take meds idpol pseudo.

>>1837130
>Hamid Dabashi's Theology of Discontent which goes over the main thinkers of the revolution.

Cool, thanks anon.

>>1836889
now im not an expert or anything but im pretty sure Sufism isnt something you "are" in terms of doctrinal identification, and that it refers to a wide range of islamic esoteric practice

>>1837333
Yeah. On a side note Khomeini massacred Iranian leftists and prohibited the possession of Marxist theory.

>>1836643
One of the funniest examples of this post playing out in real time would be an old VICE News documentary called "Egypt After Morsi", particularly the first part where the main guy is running around the Egyptian streets in the hours before the coup.

Interestingly, it's the backwards Islamists who are actually worried about the constitution, democracy, and the people's right to speak. Liberal, but you can feel oddly sympathetic for them nonetheless. Also they're all poor.

Meanwhile the secularist epic enlightened Western no-hijab intellectuals are all wealthy and angry retards frothing at the mouth about Morsi and crying out for Total Islamist Death. You wouldn't expect a CIA source to accidentally be this based but it certainly got through sometimes, especially in the old days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yaNhK4PCE

Interestingly, the dictatorship that has arosen since Morsi's collapse in Egypt has been pretty proudly secular, and yet also very encouraging of certain extremist Islamic sects who don't particularly like women but seem to suspiciously love the government.

Anyways.

The cycle of MENA leftism can best be described as the Manderlay Effect (named after a pretty good Lars von Trier movie) wherein usually western leftists seek out to enlighten the Moslems and lift them out of poverty into socialist enlightenment, becoming increasingly angry when they won't assimilate into secular western liberalism, and then resolving that the Moslems are failed humans who need to be genocided or deported en masse from the West.

You can see this play out on a country wide scale in Afghanistan, actually. >>1835068

A bunch of wealthy bourgeois "socialists" (re: the Khalqists) took over, executed the only people among them that even made some semblance of sense, and then proceeded to force their epic enlightened Reddit communism on the illiterate peasant masses by killing as many of them as possible and creating mass graves, which led to a national uprising (quite a feat in a country with fewer than 10,000 telephones) and the Soviets begrudgingly getting involved to protect some notion of perceived progressivism, which resulted in a massive war that fucked the country and we all know the rest of the story. I still remain somewhat sympathetic to Parchamists despite all their faults, they actually tried even though they could never get out of the shadow of their elitism and the consequences of Khalqism, ultimately paying the price for it. Funny enough their regime actually managed to hold on for a couple years, unlike the burger pedocracy which fell apart in a month.

>>1834491
Maybe in Pakistan this is true but you're actually high if you want to tell me that secularists are oppressed in Jordan and Egypt.

That said,

>>1837130
Khomeini was not a leftist. The Islamic Republic sought out and executed socialists quite literally with the guidance of the United States who gladly gave them the names of ex-Tudeh Party members.

Even the most considerate Khomeinist scholars during the revolutionary times had as much understanding of Marx as weebs do of Shintoism, and very much distanced themselves from it once they were in power and it was no longer a necessary alliance to overthrow the Shah.

>>1837350
oh yeah im familiar enough about that part of the history, im not in danger of doing apologia for the iranian revolution or its state lol, just sincerely curious about its nuances

>>1837204
I don't see what's idpol about saying an elite middle class usually dominate leftist movements in the MENA and their class position influences their theory and praxis as leftists. Thus creating a class of leftists who have a love hate relationship with the lower classes. You can go read the writings of many MENA leftists or talk with them and you'll find stuff in there that's either outright anti-religious anti-indigenous or with these chauvinistic attitudes to Islam and Muslim Arab/Iranian culture. e.g. in the Iranian case Mansoor Hikmet and Miriam Namazie being the most extreme.

>>1837350
The Haft-e Tir bombing which killed many members of Khomeini's inner circle and the MeK and the Rajavis siding with Saddam was what triggered the anti-leftist crackdown in Iran. Before then, leftist groups were invited to the constitutional assembly and helped write the Islamic republic's constitution. Another member of Khomeini's inner circle, the left leaning Ayatollah Behishti, who wanted a constitution modeled on Mao's China and other communist countries, was killed at Haft-e Tir. Another left leaning Islamist, Ayatollah Mutahhari was assassinated by followers of Ali Shariati, another left Islamic thinker who he had an intellectual rivalry with. Ayatollah Taleghani, another left winger, died shortly before the revolution and so did Shariati himself. In other words, the leaders of the Islamic left and left leaning Khomeinists were now all dead and there was a lot of factional infighting between leftist groups themselves not to mention the MeK siding with Saddam. Khoemini concluded the left was against him and backstabbing the revolution so he ordered a mass purge. Even then, he let the so-called Islamic Marxists to pretty much run the economy even if many of them kept getting sent to jail and released again. Marx's works are still not banned in Iran and leftist theory is available in translation. Negri even went and lectured there.

>>1837367
Yeah bro totally it was the left that betrayed the revolution by not siding with the totalitarian theocracy that suppressed them 🤡
If not for that we will have a communist theocracy in Iran.

Why didn't Marx and Lenin write about the real vanguard of the revolution, the proletariat underclass that is the clergy and its role in the transition to communist society? Were they stupid?

>>1837356
Morsi was a neoliberal stooge who begged money from the west, sent a love letter to Israel, and got called out by Hamas who were supposed to be part of his organisation. Albeit he was less cruel than the retard after him, it was non-state violence by Islamist groups that was rampant under him. The military later proved more violent than them.
Both of the groups you're describing are liberal.

>>1837421
>Totalitarian
Let's see what this means according to the inventor of that word
>It would be a still more serious mistake to forget, because of this Im-permanence, that the totalitarian regimes, so long as they are in power, and the totalitarian leaders, so long as they are alive, "command and rest upon mass support up to the end. Hitler's rise to power was legal in terms of majority rule" and neither he nor Stalin could have maintained the leadership of large populations, survived many interior and exterior crises, and braved the numerous dangers of relentless intra-party struggles if they had not had the confidence of the masses. Neither the Moscow trials nor the liquidation of the Rohm faction would have been possible if these masses had not supported Stalin and Hitler. The widespread belief that Hitler was simply an agent of German industrialists and that Stalin was victorious in the succession struggle after Lenin's death only through a sinister conspiracy are both legends which can be refuted by many facts but above all by the leaders' indisputable popularity.' Nor can their popularity be attributed Lo the victory of masterful and lying propaganda over ignorance and stupidity.
You're so full of shit that even the inventor of the word admitted that totalitarianism requires popular support (democracy)
>Theocracy
Not a real thing. All societies are ruled by dictatorship of a certain class. Saying otherwise is liberal idiocy.
Also, "mUh aNti-ComUnISt rEgiMe!!!" Here is Lenin on anti-Comunist monarchist amnullah khan: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/14.htm

What's historical materialism? What's Islamic revivalism? MENA is just sand and niqab, always was and will be. Don't read too much into it, chùd.
>>1837441
>semantics
tldr
Based comrade Khomeini allying with the CIA (PBUH) to crackdown on labour aristocracy and the save the theocracy of the proletariat from the enemies of Islam.
While we are quoting the Lenin the Marxist infidel who massacred 3 quadrillion people according to the Ayatollah
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm
>With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind:

>first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on;

>second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries;

>third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.;[In the proofs Lenin inserted a brace opposite points 2 and 3 and wrote '2 and 3 to be united'.-Editor.]

>fourth, the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character by establishing the closest possible alliance between the West European communist proletariat and the revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies, and in the backward countries generally. It is particularly necessary to exert every effort to apply the basic principles of the Soviet system in countries where pre-capitalist relations predominate-by setting up 'working people's Soviets', etc.;

>fifth, the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form;

>sixth, the need constantly to explain and expose among the broadest working masses of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practised by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily. Under present-day international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and weak nations except in a union of Soviet republics."

>>1834329
The solution is not militant atheism but kirchenkampf like policies. So state control over mosques, keep what is good in Quran and strongly promote it, throw ou what is bad and pretend it doesnt exist. Sorry to say but Germans got it right on that one

>>1837130
>Check out Ghamari-Tabrizi's book Foucault in Iran and Hamid Dabashi's Theology of Discontent which goes over the main thinkers of the revolution. You could also take a look at some of Foucault's Iran reports
While that would be interesting to read, I thought I'd share this excerpt from a lecture by Pakistani Marxist Taimur Rahman where he mentions Foucault and the Iranian revolution (39:44). I don't think he's a fan.

>>1837450
>no mention of sorel
it really is a controversial subject to link revisionist socialism with fascisms origin.
isnt it

>>1834158
>look at these cherry-picked photo ops from the centers of totalitarian government power
>ignore the 99% of the rest of the country that is nothing like this

It's because of retards like you that we keep getting blindsided by sudden Islamic uprisings because guess what - Islam is still a pretty core part of Arab and Middle-Eastern identity and there's a reason why every secular government in the MENA ended up being authoritarian oppressive shitbags (even today) because it turns out that's the only way you can force such an ideology on a majority that doesn't want it.

Palestinian Maoists became Islamists

>>1837581
>authoritarian oppressive shitbags
ok liberal

>>1834073
Don't care if you live there. It's still orientalism. Brown middle easterns don't have religion in their genes. No one has.

>>1837356
>Maybe in Pakistan this is true but you're actually high if you want to tell me that secularists are oppressed in Jordan and Egypt.

Sherif Gaber
Go fuck yourself pseud

>>1837581
>we keep getting blindsided by sudden Islamic uprisings
>the only way you can force such an ideology on a majority that doesn't want it.
That's why they have to sanction, bomb a country and arm reactionaries within it to topple the government, yet it still doesn't work because said government has the support of the people, so they have to either go in and invade to forcefully install Islamists (Iraq) or just give up (Syria).

>>1837676
no, don't you see all brown people are islamists just like the state department told me

>>1837581
>there's a reason why every secular government in the MENA ended up being authoritarian oppressive shitbags
Yeah no. It is the US, the UK and Saudi Arabia funding islamism. Zigger.

Guys did Marx ever consider that MENA are of the reactionary races?

>>1837989
>But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
>The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.
https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm
Chad Engels already accounted for that

There is no need to bring Marilyn Monroe into this!

>>1837820
>Zigger
go back to reddit

Stop derailing the thread IRGCfags