[Marxism] Communists link up with Islamic radicals (WSJ)

[Walter Lippmann]

Thanks to Louis for his questions which got me to looking back at
some of the material again.

The convergence is in the STRUGGLE, regardless of differences over a
range of philosophical questions, they should, as the saying goes,
march separately but strike together. The strike in this situation is
to march together to build the strongest possible, the most massive
possible publid demonstrations against Israel's attack on Lebanon.

Hezbollah is a religious-political organization. The Lebanese CP and
other left forces are strictly political organizations, but the unite in
practice, as described in International Viewpoint:

In the Israeli prisons and camps, the communists and Hezbollah were
side by side. A majority of communists and fewer Hezbollah. They got
to know each other there and that created relations between the
cadres of the two organizations. And after they were released the
relations more or less evolved.

Furthermore, on the level of its thinking, the Hezbollah has evolved,
especially after the election of Hassan Nasrallah to the position of
general secretary. Because - this is a point of view that many
comrades share with me - he is much more Arab than Muslim, in other
words, he looks at things through the eyes of an Arab: he doesn’t
want to liberate Jerusalem because it iss one of Islam’s holy places,
but because the Palestinians have to go back to the land of their
ancestors, have to have their own state... He has a vision that is
different from that of his predecessors. Then we had relations that
were more or less mitigated, sometimes good, sometimes bad.

And now?

Our relations have especially evolved since the last Israeli
aggression, where we ourselves called for the formation of a national
resistance front and formed militias which opposed the entry of
Israel into several villages, including certain attempts by Israeli
commandos to enter them - in the Bekaa, near Baalbeck, where we
stopped the commando which wanted to move into Jameliyyah, 
a village with a communist majority. We had three comrades 
killed there.

We are still a little bit skeptical in our relations with the
Hezbollah, because up to now there are points of dispute between us.
For example as concerns the elimination of the confessional regime
[1], they don’t have a very clear position, although they have
evolved.

We had a difference with them in the summer of 2005, after the
withdrawal of Syrian forces. During the legislative elections the
Hezbollah felt it necessary, to protect itself from Resolution 1559
[2], to make an alliance with those who awere pro-Syrian and who
subsequently became transformed into pro-Americans, i.e. the Lebanese
Forces, Hariri (Mustaqbal) and Joumblatt’s PSP. It is thanks to this
alliance that the March 14 forces [3] - Hassan Nasrallah admits it -
won a majority and were able to form a government. Because if the
Hezbollah had made an alliance with the communists and with certain
Aounists [4], that majority wouldn’t have existed.

So we consider the Hezbollah as a party of resistance, which is part
of a movement of national liberation on the national and Arab level,
but we have differences with it on how to resolve the political and
economic situation in Lebanon. But on these questions also it has
evolved, especially over the last four months: it took part in a very
real way in the demonstration on May 10.
FULL:
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1159

WALTER CONTINUING: 
My recollection is that the SWP tended, withing its organization, to
make something of a fetish of its atheism. We've had discussions on
this list of the matter of Norman O, who left, became a Muslim, and
was denied readmission because he'd become a Muslim. Malcolm X's
evolution was tragically struck down by his assassination, so we can
do no more than speculate about what might have happened in his
further development. Louis's observation that there wasn't evidence
of a convergence between the SWP and Malcolm X isn't entirely
accurate. As is well-known, Malcolm and the YSA were discussing a
national speaking tour of campuses by Malcolm in which the YSA
would have played a key role. Had such a tour come about, I would
hope there's have been broad "tour committees" to which anyone
could have belonged rather than having local meetings organized by
the YSA itself, obviously too numerically small to handle such tours.

Besides, Malcolm was moving politically, moving to the left, but he
NEVER moved away from Islam. Not for one single moment. Pick up
a copy of MALCOLM X SPEAKS, or any of the other books published
by Pathfinder by Malcolm X. He had his ideas and we (in the SWP)
had hours. Malcolm, as we know, appreciated the one critical article
he saw, the one by George Breitman discussing his views about the
United Nations. Malcolm appreciated other practical positions and
acts by THE MILITANT, and by the SWP, and said so openly. Louis
is not quite accurate to say that Malcolm X "came around the SWP".

What happened is that their activities in the struggle CONVERGED
and so they found themselves engaged in common activities, but
not to the point of organizational convergence, except in one way:
Black members of the SWP were welcomed to join Malcolm X's
Organization of Afro-American Unity. I don't imagine any members
of the SWP joined Malcolm's religious group: Muslim Mosque, Inc.

Louis is correct about supporting resistance struggle. And no one has 
suggested any blurring of such boundaries as exist between tendencies. 
In any event, I don't imagine that the Israeli prison guards make such 
distinctions in any event. 

Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam because he wanted to become more
active in the struggle than Elijah Muhammad and the leadership of the
Nation of Islam wanted that organization to go. He also objected to 
the sexual misbehavior of Elijah Muhammad, and said so publicly.

Interestingly, in the recent past, when Minister Louis Farrakhan built 
a revived Nation of Islam, he has moved the group into a significantly
more political direction than it had been during Elijah Muhammad's
days as its principle leader. He made a big week-long tour of Cuba
earlier this year, and was extremely public about that. the Nation of
Islam is today the largest and most influential organization in the
Black community to take a clearly pro-Cuban political position as a
look at their website makes clear. And it wasn't just a single tour
and no follow-up. There has been regular follow-up in the pages of
the Nation's newspaper, THE FINAL CALL. Go there and just put the
word "Cuba" in the search engine and you will see that continuous
coverage is going on.

INTERNATIONAL COVERAGE IN THE FINAL CALL
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/cat_index_3.shtml

Hugo Chavez is a Christian. Fidel Castro is an atheist, but they are
converging through the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas,
through Telesur, through Petrocaribe, and through a thousand and
one ways. Fidel and Chavez don't let their theological differences,
whatever they might be - they don't make any point of debating
such differences in public - get in the way of practical collaboration.

Louis advised readers to disregard what the WALL STREET JOURNAL
wrote about the growing practical convergence in the struggle today
in Lebanon. Louis has exercised his right do disregard the article and
the facts which the WSJ cites. Disregarding facts is not a wise thing
for adherents to Marxism to do. Facts are stubborn things anyway.

Those who wish to take a look at those stubborn facts can go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2006-December/007428.html

Some better ways to have discussions with followers of Al-Islam:


FOLLOWING THE TRACKS OF MOHAMMED
from Bohemia weekly Cuban magazine
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs428.html

ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM 
(from TEMAS bi-monthly magazine)
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs823.html


============================================
LOUS PROYECT wrote:
What exactly is the convergence of views? Populism? Marxism? Shia 
radicalism? Hezbollah is basically a charity from the economics 
standpoint. It gains support among the Shia poor in the same way that 
Hamas does in the occupied territories. Marxism is about workers 
asserting themselves politically and economically until they finally 
seize power and become the new ruling class. This is what Marx meant 
by socialism. If people fight American occupation, we should 
obviously support their struggle but we have our own ideas about 
society which will never converge with radical Islam. When Malcolm X 
came around the SWP, it was because he was becoming interested in 
socialist ideas. I don't think that the SWP was about to converge 
with the Nation of Islam. You don't want to antagonize somebody like 
Malcolm or whoever by making a huge to-do about the universe being 
made of atoms but that's about it.

>This Wall Street Journal report contains a heavy dose of red-
>baiting, particularly aimed at London's Mayor Ken Livingstone.
>And it goes particularly ballistic at the growing convergence
>of revolutionary left and pro-Cuban radicals with the Islamic
>resistance movement such as Hezbollah, the group which fought
>Israel to a standstill earlier this year, for the first time
>that had ever taken place.

I would not pay much attention to the WSJ article, which smacks of 
their editorial page rather than the usual high quality of reporting.