Islamic resistance: the main contradiction, and the "war on terror"

Here are some more views on US imperialism:

Translation by Google:

From To Serve the People:

By Serve in Home
By Comrade Ajith, one of the most brilliant Maoist theorists in India, at the time (2008) leader of the CPI (ML) Naxalbari who merged since, May 1, 2014, in the CPI (Maoist). He has been a prisoner of the fascist state since May 2015

What is the record of almost 7 years of "war against terrorism" led by George W. Bush? The death, destruction, torture and all the inhumanity of imperialism have multiplied by a thousand.And in spite of all this, the United States and its allies are still very far from their goals in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world.

The two wars in Iraq were celebrated by the US ruling class as the end of the "Vietnam Syndrome", that is, the fear of engaging in protracted military interventions and getting bogged down with all the consequences that implies. But now, debates and internal dissension seem to indicate quite the opposite.

Despite the constant sending of reinforcements to Iraq, the Bush regime has failed to reduce resistance. US losses are increasing every year. In the United States itself and among their allies, the pressure for withdrawal is growing. But things are not so easy: withdrawing troops would be tantamount to an official acceptance of defeat in the "war on terror". The impact of this would not be limited to the region alone. Beyond that, it would imply an explosion of sectarian violence. Africa is unfortunately proof that imperialism can live with it and even profit from it.But sectarian violence in Iraq would not remain contained within its borders. Its extension would have far greater strategic implications than in Africa[almost 10 years after the writing of this text, we could see yes ...] . An Iraqi internal war would have an impact on neighboring countries, affecting the world's leading oil producing region and causing a devastating destabilization of the entire global economy.

US imperialism is caught in an impasse. He can not continue in this direction for a long time, nor can he withdraw easily. The option of involving Iran to use its influence in Iraq is even more contradictory. First, virtually every study conducted by imperialist think tanks acknowledges that Iran's role in Iraqi Shiite resistance is minor. On the other hand, to concede to the current Iranian regime a role to guarantee the stability of Iraq, would be a considerable slash in the American plans for Western Asia.

It would also weaken their control over other comprador regimes in the region. The "war on terror" meant for the United States to reap the benefits of being the only superpower. Its purpose was to ensure that neither the peoples of the world nor their imperialist rivals were able to challenge their supremacy. But the bloodshed in Iraq and elsewhere has exposed the military weakness of US imperialism to the people, and thus, has given them more confidence to fight against it, its strategy always appearing more like a burden. Added to this is the possibility for its imperialist rivals, especially Russia, to advance their pawns while it is "fixed" in Iraq.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not strictly comparable to Vietnam. In this country, there was a revolutionary force leading a national liberation struggle. Here, the national war is organized and directed mainly by the Islamic forces. But as for the situation in which the United States is today, the similarities are striking. This is rooted in the main source of the problem, the development of the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations and peoples, which describes the context and determines its dynamics. Unlike Vietnam, this contradiction does not manifest itself in Western Asia and Afghanistan through an acute differentiation produced by a revolutionary ideology, but is still bogged down in a sectarian clash of masses against masses. But it is precisely this complexity, the particular form in which the contradiction of development, which requires to be analyzed.

It is necessary to begin to look at two points of view, which complement each other despite seeming totally contradictory. The former formally recognizes the reactionary character of the ideology of the Islamic forces, but then practices an acritical follow-up towards them. The second formally admits that they are part of oppressed and colonized humanity, but then presents their struggle against imperialist occupation as a clash between two reactionary forces.The common point between the two is a logic of a particular kind, which means that their premises are found absolutely nowhere in their conclusions ... What is striking, above all, is the way in which these two positions seek to avoid deal with the complexity mentioned above. In such a way that one and the other stand in the way of any possible Maoist intervention; in the first case, by putting oneself in the trailer of "what exists on the ground", in the second case while staying away from a "confused" reality.

The main problem with the main resistance in Iraq or Afghanistan is not that it is Islamic, or to put it in more general terms, whether it is directed by an ideology of a religious character.Religious ideologies have repeatedly played a progressive role in history. They can still become expressions of national and democratic content, because in oppressed countries, in semi-colonial and semi-feudal conditions, religion is not only a spiritual question: it is also a lifestyle closely intertwined with the national culture.

In relation to the subject specifically discussed here, the main problem is the development of this ideology in particular, the reactionary social programs proposed by the most determined forces of Islamic resistance, their "fundamentalism". However, beyond looking for the reason why religious ideologies, instead of seculars, get so much support, we must also ask why this religious current in particular is moving forward, instead of a theology of liberation for example .A tempting response could be a combination of factors such as the weakening of faith in progressive thinking and the practice in general, occasioned by world events (notably the fall of socialism),comprador with the secularization of the society; the ferocity and the inflexible rejection of the existing situation that is observed in fundamentalist religiosity and which offers the masses a militant radicalism: all these factors have certainly played out. The ravages of globalization and misery, combined with the conscious impulse given to religious movements by imperialism and reactionaries, are undoubtedly favorable conditions.

But we must be careful not to give too much importance to this. To establish an absolute causality between the weakening of religion and proletarianization, and vice versa between deproletarization and its resurgence, is the worst kind of mechanical thinking and hasty generalization that can exist. With regard to the role of imperialism and reaction, even in retaining it as an important factor, it nonetheless raises the question of why it is so successful, and therefore implies, and even more strong reason, the need to look into the material and cultural factors intrinsic to each particular society. Just as the vision of the thrust of these fundamentalist movements as a pure "ploy of imperialism and reaction" to "

What is the class centrality of fundamentalist Islamic movements, or fundamentalist movements in general in oppressed countries? It can be quite petty-bourgeois, rural or urban, including "modern" education. Marxism and the experiences of everyday life show us that the petty bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries is an important social force at the national level, not belonging in any way to historically backward sectors, although it is quite capable of to be reactionary. Historical experience also teaches us that it can sometimes trigger national liberation movements. The petty-bourgeois composition of their core is an important reason why certain fundamentalist movements are able to bind themselves to the broad masses and to put themselves at the head of legitimate resistance. But if, of course, analysis is guided solely by moral repugnance, it can only conclude that it is a collection of reactionary social strata arisen from obscure ages - not even the assumption of the contrary being allowed.

[NB: this article dates from 2008; at that time, the Daesh phenomenon had not yet emerged (its predecessor, "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia", was more in trouble than anything else). Since then, Daesh reigned between 2014 and 2017 on a Mesopotamian "Caliphate" for the account (to give them a base of accumulation where to invest) billionaires financiers of the Gulf: it is therefore not exactly a force "petty-bourgeois "or" bourgeois national ". In general, if we read also the very interesting biography of the Turkish Necmettin Erbakan , the fact that "Islamism" represents a national bourgeoisie but very closely linkedto feudalism (which in the Gulf has become a petro-oligarchy) is its main limit to become a national-democratic, anti-imperialist revolutionary liberation force.]

This may be appropriate if one seeks to gain an audience among people discouraged by the opinions and practices of the most reactionary fundamentalists, but this will not help the Maoists to gain access to an understanding and a correct treatment of this phenomenon, nor to mobilize a revolutionary mass on this basis, whether in oppressed countries or imperialist countries. The position that resistance in a country like Iraq is a clash between two reactionary groups is to be rejected as imperialist economism precisely because the aspect of national resistance contained in it is denied. The distinction apparently drawn between colonized and imperialist can not make any sense, since its involvement in the national contradiction is denied (by the way,

In the current situation, one result of this is for example the overthrow of priority objectives in the occupied countries, as can be seen in the argument that "to really be with the people of Afghanistan today, it is necessary to to oppose all of its main enemies: the Taliban, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and, of course, the foreign occupiers . " [1] This simple addition of the imperialist occupiers at the end of the list of main enemies, instead of focusing on they and the puppet state, is an inevitable expression of the imperialist economism underlying all the analysis.

Assuming that the nucleus of the fundamentalist movement is petty-bourgeois, where does its virulent reactionary character come from, so contradictory in appearance with its objective class position? To address this issue, we need to distinguish fundamentalism from revivalism. There is no wall of China separating them. The transformation implemented when they gain political power is obvious. But if they present an important difference, it is in their religiosity. Revivalist religiosity, such as the HindutvaSangh Parivar in India, is rather superficial. Despite the profusion of rituals and symbols, including those long abandoned by "true believers", there is no problem in accompanying them with vulgar self-indulgences compradores. Every religion inevitably contains a dose of unconscious hypocrisy, but here this hypocrisy is conscious, not unrecognized. The pursuit of vulgar material things and the imitation of imperialist culture (which nevertheless aims to "weaken the national spirit" for the nationalist forces) are well accommodated and internalized, and are an important part of the revivalist "way of life".

For fundamentalists ( Khalistaniswere a good example, just like the Taliban), the return to "uncontaminated" practice of religion is absolutely inflexible. This spirituality must necessarily face the whip with the present and the powers that impose it. In fact, the reverse is seen as the only way to resist and overcome the degeneration of the present. Going back to the past does not necessarily mean serving the reaction. An example is the Lutheran Reformation in Europe. His spirituality was closely linked to the disgust of the monetarization of redemption and other "anti-Christian" acts of the Catholic Church, and called for returning to the idyllic past of early Christian times. But objectively, the Luther Reformation promoted the development of capitalism, a society where the money is the supreme government; completely the opposite of what it was intended to achieve. Independently of the desires of the Redeemer, the social forces of the capitalist transition have put them at their service. If we look again at the fundamentalism of oppressed countries, the desperate nature of its project is clear. Here we have societies in which each development of bureaucratic capitalism collaterally resuscitates some feudalisms;where the dynamic of social transformations is repressed, disarticulated by the imperialist oppression of the nation. Thus, the objective context propels and shapes the efforts of fundamentalists to overcome the present by returning to the past, in a reactionary juxtaposition of existing social relations, including when

It is the impossibility of the project of a fundamentalist society that gives it its rigid fanatic character, its ferocious spirituality, its capacity to arouse militancy until self-sacrifice, and ultimately the root of its reactionary character. At its heart is an intense reaction to national, cultural alienation, continually aggravated by imperialist domination and its imposed transformations. Such is his crucible. To reduce fundamentalism to the dissatisfaction of some feudal or clan elements, or a mere resurgence of their ideologies would be to lose sight of a very important detail: its extremely modern character, that it is a product of our time. Exposing the reactionary contents of fundamentalism is undoubtedly necessary. Awareness of women,Dalitsand other sectors of the oppressed masses, chained by religious traditions, offer powerful sources of energy to do this. But unless the spiritual space occupied by fundamentalism is reconquered by an enlightening vision of total, national and vibrant liberation, a secular culture and a new society free from exploitation, and unless the physical space today occupied by the fundamentalist resistance is recovered under the revolutionary flags of a People's War, the Maoists will not succeed.

For all these reasons, in the specific context of resistance against imperialist occupation, the relationship between fundamentalist forces and Maoists can not be as simple as antagonism or collaboration. It can contain both. The reactionary social program of a fundamentalist force in an oppressed country does not automatically exclude it from national resistance. His actions against the oppressor of the nation are just. To the question of whether it reflects the contradiction of the oppressed people with imperialism, or that between a part of the ruling classes and an imperialist power, it must be answered by the concrete analysis of class composition at the center of the force. in question. Generalities, in every way, are useless. 

There is another aspect to take into account: in a context of occupation, the contradiction between the nation and the occupiers becomes primary. All the other contradictions, including those between the ruling classes or certain sectors of them and the imperialist powers, are determined, conditioned by this principal contradiction. So, even when the nucleus of a force is constituted by dominant classes (comprador or feudal), its resistance against the occupation is objectively part of the national resistance. This does not erase the reactionary interests that guide its action, but even these interests do not exclude it as such from resistance.

In political terms, the mere fact that a force resists imperialist occupation does not mean the Maoists must ratify it as a national liberation force and unite with it, even when they recognize its resistance and the objective role that 'she plays. But on the other hand, it is not possible to deny this objective role of resistance against the occupation by invoking the reactionary social program it could possibly defend.

To approach the subject from this angle requires a correct understanding of Mao Zedong's contribution to the path of revolution in the oppressed countries, and particularly his analysis of the complex web of contradictions that are observed around the world. Today, it is commonly accepted in the Maoist movement that the main contradiction in the world is that which opposes imperialism and oppressed nations and peoples. However, this often does not inform us analytically about phenomena such as the resurgence of various forms of religious movements in oppressed countries. Worse still, is the situation in which the imperialists appropriate the slogan of "war against terrorism" which appears, at least in its current phase, as guided by the interest of the US ruling class to roll back Islamic fundamentalism. This is the stated goal. But a closer look reveals something else. Until the end of the last century, not only US imperialism but the entire NATO bloc was entirely dedicated to the issue of developing plans to overcome decades of revolutionary turmoil. A recent study by the UK Ministry of Defense puts it quite explicitly. [2]develop plans to overcome decades of revolutionary turmoil. A recent study by the UK Ministry of Defense puts it quite explicitly. [2] develop plans to overcome decades of revolutionary turmoil. A recent study by the UK Ministry of Defense puts it quite explicitly. [2]

It is not difficult to understand this concern if it is situated within the framework of imperialist globalization and the resistance that grows against it. The promotion of the policy espoused in particular by the US neoconservatives, formulated after the fact as a "war on terror", is part of this vast imperialist strategy, which is largely directly related to the development of the main world contradiction stated above. Today, the armed struggle is described as "terrorism" regardless of its political content. The "war on terror", in which Islamic fundamentalism is apparently the designated enemy, has its antecedents in the counterinsurgency campaign conducted in South America under the name "war on drugs".

The "war on terror" is actually a war against the peoples of the world, seeking to roll back the new emerging wave of world revolution. Such is the dynamic that demands to be understood, if one wants to extract intellectually terminologies imposed by the imperialist establishment .

Politics are naturally different from one country to another, and between oppressed countries and imperialist countries. There are nevertheless similarities. Islamic "terrorism", like that of other resistance groups, can be appropriately used by the ruling classes of these two categories of countries to legitimize a suppression or restriction of democratic rights. When the victims are the popular masses, the terrorist acts divide them and push a large part of them under the flag of the rulers. It is necessary to draw a clear dividing line between terrorism and revolutionary violence. But it also fails us to draw a clear line of demarcation between the Maoist position and the "anti-terrorist" propaganda of the imperialism and reaction. This can only be done with arguments showing who represents the main threat to humanity and who is the main culprit.What is needed is above all a firm and unconditional defense of the right of peoples to resist by arms. Opposition to the ideology or social program they follow should not distract us from this.And the only way to make sure of this is a full understanding of the dynamics of the revolution, the opposition to the system and in particular the main contradiction in the current world situation. When the current unrest in the world is seen, as a whole, only under the prism of inter-bourgeois or reactionary conflicts, when the major turning points are analyzed and

[1] WPRM-Winnipeg, "Notes on Afghanistan"

[2] "Disparities in wealth and, hence, opportunities will become more apparent, with the associated resentments, including among the growing number of people who aspire to live materially better than their parents and grandparents." Absolute poverty and comparative disadvantage fuel the feeling of injustice among those whose aspirations are not fulfilled, increasing tensions and instability both within and between societies and resulting in expressions of violence such as disorder, delinquency Terrorism and insurgency can also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies, possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilistic movements,but also to populism and a revival of Marxism ".Global Strategic Trends Program, DCDC, 2007-2006. The DCDC is the Directorate General of the British Ministry of Defense. The document is a source for the development of UK defense policy.