Seriously how are they wrapping their heads around that the racist hegemon wants to wipe both Palestine and Russia off the earth, and is funding their enemies in both cases?? Do they think the US doesn’t know where their interests lie?
US: Allied to Israel and Ukraine. Gives them billions in weaponry. Consistently votes against Palestinian statehood. Funds the murder of countless Palestinians.
Russia: Consistently votes in favor of Palestinian statehood. The USSR even fought a short war against Israel in the 1960s.
You’re correct on the first point. That’s a typo on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. They were of course nationalist. But their nationalism was still ultimately inconsistent with communist politics. My brain was fuzzy lol as I’d spent all day explaining to ultras what Islamism is.
In really not sure what you think is being established by your second comment. Are you saying they were not anti-communist because they also banned other political parties? Because that is self-evidently false. Fascists also banned all other parties along with communist parties to establish a one party state. Are they now therefore not anti-communist because they also banned other political parties? The fact that it may (or not) be valid for communists to only allow one party under socialism does not seem to imply that all one-party states are equal. Additionally they were explicit in their anti-communism. Their rule extinguished the potential for communist politics, along with the rise of Islamist. The installation fo ineffective and corrupt nationalist governments has not generally led to communist political ascendency, but rather to Islamist ascendency, as the latter benefited more from the perceived illegitimacy of these governments.
I’m not really sure what your point is by noting that there were a lot of pied-noirs. Should Jor Slovo have been axed after he was part of the armed struggle against apartheid because he was white even though a communist? Judging the political progressiveness of someone like that is fundamentally identitarian and has far more in common with contemporary postmodern and post structural or general liberal, Soc dem and ultra leftist identity politics. It is fundamentally non-Marxist. What matters is how that individual positions themself politically and whether, in this case, they are a class or colonial race traitor. Otherwise kind of position which simply says ‘they white therefore they bad’ is strangely and perversely moralistic to me, and just reproduced the race essentialism, rather than taking a historical materialism view on racial identity, which doesn’t allow that kind of blanket conclusion. You are correct that the PCF has had persistent issues with racism and chauvinism still its inception. So did Engels, frankly. I don’t see how this invalidates communism as preferable to nationalism or indicated that the PCL was in no way communist in its ideology or politics.
My sources are French, Algerian and from Algerian Communist and non-communist friends and acquaintances. You of course correct that the general French liberal and conservative reaction to the nationalist is to see them as satanic. That being said, the FNL did completely did commit atrocities against progressive opponents and civilians. The fact that western liberals or conservatives oppose a group due to their own interests in no ways means that said group’s long term interests are coherent in any long term sense with those of communists.
This kind of argument is very weird to me. It would carry over to the case of the Iranian revolution and the Islamist’s. Should the fact that they were, in a broad sense, attempting to ‘liberate’ Iranians from Western imperialism, therefore they should be viewed positively or as progressive? They are an even more prefect example of a diversion of radical energy from a growing communist movement to radical reactionary mass movements that then brutally crushed all Iranian communist groups through torture, rape and assassination.
Yeah, of course, Arab nationalism is inconsistent with communist politics, but the FLN was as nationalistic as much as it was communist, it has gone to wars with other Arab countries, voted against them, and stood with them depending on the condition.
well are they fascist Islamists because they banned all parties including communist parties? you look at the policies of the FLN and its relations to define that, not if they banned a party or not. Stalin killed a number of opportunists and Trotskyists after the revolution, does that make him a fascist? you’re not making sense.
No, that is not an evidence of being anti communist, the Islamist reactionaries were funded by Al Qaeda and the US and Wahhabists, the rise of Islamist terrorists and Nationalistic terrorists in the balkans post Yugoslavia doesn’t mean that Yugoslavia repressed communism.
Algeria is not Apartheid south Africa, the Settlers in Algeria were more recent and the colonizer crimes were more violent, a party that majorly attracts pieds noirs and isn’t popular with natives means that the party looks for the interests of the Pieds noirs, which the PCA was, it didn’t look for the native interest, the PCA is like the socialists parties of setters in the Zionist entity. the people who fought on the side of Algeria during the revolution native or not were granted citizenship, Harkis were kicked out of the country.
http://babelouedstory.com/thema_les/histoire/12070/12070.html
And the Fr*nch colonizers committed a thousand other for 132 years, The FLN didn’t drop nukes, Napalm or bomb in barrages, so I don’t care and I have no sympathy.
The Algerian argument of should’ve the FLN won the revolution or not are as meaningful and important as the “how could’ve Hitler won WWII” arguments, it’s milquetoast and outright useless to complain that the FLN didn’t press the communism button in 1963 or that they bombed a milk bar, what matters is that the FLN as much as I dislike them, have and continues to be fighters of Imperialism and supporters of leftist and liberation movements in the global south.
First off there’s literally no need for this to get aggressive. Some of your latter responses are showing far mor about your own maturity frankly that making substantive points. It’s not milquetoast and it’s no issue with violence. Nor is it saying that you cannot cooperate tactically with reactionaries. It’s highlighting the dangers and pointing to what has happens to communists every time in the Global South when reactionaries who communists have cooperated with win. I agree that an FNL victory is preferable to French colonialism. That’s not what is at issue in my point. This is a serious discussion about what are the correct ways to view different third world movements whose interests are not the same as imperialists. And that’s not a trivial or obvious thing that you can reduce to lower school arithmetic of supportive of the yanks or frog munchers or not. Al Quaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram all define themselves as liberation movements and are opposed to US imperialism. That America is to blame for their existence does not contradict that. That’s a bizarre, arbitrary metaphysical inference that doesn’t follow at all. It’s just blowback. Taliban are also a material product of US policy, but their aims changed and diverged radically.
If you’re going to want to establish that the FLN was partly communist in some substantial, organizational, ideological sense then please provide evidence of them implementing actual communist policies which are not simply what any corrupt national bourgeois government would do and please explain their reactionary policies. Again comrade this is not me being passive aggressive, I’d just like clarification of what you mean.
By-the-bye, the political violence I was referring to was not against the French. I am mentioning against progressives and Algerian civilians. The idea that these were all q French lovers is not true. But yeh, again, and I’m going to keep saying it seems there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance: not all methods of national liberation or opposition to capitalism are equally valid politically or ethically imo. If people are able to understand this in the case of Sendero Luminoso and the Khmer Rouge it’s not clear to me why this isn’t clear in other cases.
Like it also seems to le that the a lot of the people self-identifying as Leninists don’t actually seem to have very seriously studied the history of the Bolshevik party’s foreign policy. The relevant example is that neither the Soviets nor the PRC ever took a position of unconditional support for all national liberation movements. They had to actually indicate substantial potential for progressive policy and change. There is some argument for that in the case of the FLN, but I personally think it’s often overdone.
On your comment that I’ve not made sense, respectfully I think you haven’t grasped my point. I was having a hunch at what your point was supposed to be. You said that they were not anti-communist and appeared to justify it by saying that they banned other parties and formed a one party state. The FLN were opposed not simply to that particular communist party, but communist movements in general. But if that’s the reasoning, then that would make any party that did that not anti-communist. Again, as I already mentioned in my above comment, I’m not saying that it makes them anti-communist to oppose other communists, I’m saying that the fact that a group opposed groups apart from communists doesn’t negate their anticommunism.
Also: my claim is not that the fact that Islamist’s ascended tit he detriment of communists is what makes the FLN anti-communist. What made them anti-communist was their ideology and their policies and material consequences of those. The point about the rise of Islamist is me pointing to the danger of these groups. That’s my central point. Their dominance and inevitable insufficiency, combined with their opposition to more progressive political developments, created the conditions leading to that.
Like are you just defining as communist now what happens to be the popular party or the one that can oppose western imperialism? I’m assuming you’re not but it’s difficult for me to know because you haven’t made clear what the terms you’re using mean. I’m not trying to be rude here but it’s not clear what the meanings or points or relations between points you take yourself to be making are to me.
Someone killing a communist does not preclude them being ideologically communists or implémentign some genuine policies of socialist construction.The Stalinist killing of many members of the party (and don’t bother linking me some brain dead Grover Fur garbage to argue otherwise, cos u can literally just read the actual archive documents) did not preclude Stalin being a serious, intelligent and self-consciously committed communist. That’s called being an inconsistent communist. Stalin has quite a few L’s. Like y’a know, ethnically cleansing tartars and putting bullets in the spines of quite a few innocent comrades who had given there lives for the revolution, known and unknown. At this point in history, not incorporating that into a balanced view of Stalin is not only pathetically childish and idiotic, and will not only alienate someone from from the entirety of the left we actually have to work with if you are an actual militant, but means that in any future hypothetical opportunity for socialism the same mistakes are more likely to be made.
Not giving a fuck about some of consequences is unfortunate and problematic but it is what it is. But opposition to imperialism and opposing unnecessary atrocity are not inconsistent. In any case, your lack of sympathy or empathy is not a guide to correct politics. That’s not his communist agitating or organizing is going to be effectively done. It breeds a reactionary politics and diverts attraction to reactionary alternatives like Islamism. Neither is outrage at atrocity a strict guide, that’s not the point. One of the great lessons and warnings of the 20th century in the post-WW2 period is that national bourgeois governments are in no way a solution to the post colonial dilemma or a sufficient response to imperialism and neocolonialism is even it formal independence is achieved.
I’d also add that I’m not saying that cooperation with the FLN or Hamas for local communists is the wrong move. But the communists in those positions are under far less illusions about the extent to which that’s a matter of necessity and survival. The first united front between the CPC and the GMD is a telling example of how that logic survival can apply even though it’s t might also be likely that once that group has an advantage and the shared opposition is no longer immediate, that they will crush it the communist movement when the opportunity arises.
Again not trying to make this aggressive or tense comrade.
I’m out
deleted by creator