6 nov 2015

On a polemic on the Islamic State forgetting feudalism

Submitted by Anonyme (non vérifié)

In Bangladesh those last days, a policeman was murdered by a group affiliated to the Islamic State, group having already killed an Italian aid worker and a Japanese farmer, and also two others people in the blast at the country's main Shiite shrine.

But it was a group connected to Al-Qaeda which attacked last saturday two publishing house offices in Dhaka, killing Faisal Arefin Dipan, chief of publication house Jagriti Prokashoni, injuring critically Suddhaswar publisher Ahmedur Rashid Tutul, considered as “atheists and blasphemers”, whereas a few hours before the US-Bangladesh blogger Avijit Roy was murdered.

Those murders follow the killings of others bloggers, part of a list of 84 “atheists bloggers” considered as ennemies. Ananta Bijoy Das in May, Washiqur Rahman Babu in March, Avijit Roy in February... were hacked to death.

The goal is easy to understand : it is to repress the democratic and materialistic point of views. As Enlightment can't progress because of the semi-feudal semi-colonial basis of the country, it is a democratic revolution which is advancing, with much bends.

In an interesting way, at the same time, there was a short polemic among some fake “maoists” about the nature of the Islamic State. We say “fake”, because those Maoists wannabe don't know neither dialectical materialism nor the thesis of Mao about feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism.

All began with the PMLI, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Italy. Existing since the movement of 1968 in Italy, mainly in the city of Florence, it is very legalistic, even paying the muncipality to have its posters displayed in the city ; of course, it considers the Red Brigades as killers, etc.

In the opening speech of its General Secretary at the 5th Plenary Session of the 5th Party Central Committee, held in Florence on 11 October 2015, it was so said :

“An imperialist holy alliance is born to fight and destroy the Islamic State fighting against imperialism. Of course, the PMLI cannot be part of it.

Our natural stand point is together with those who fight against imperialism, that is the common enemy of all the peoples of the world.

The Islamic State does not want imperialism to be the master of Iraq, Syria, Middle East, North and Central Africa, Afghanistan and Yemen. We do not want it either, therefore we cannot but support it (…).

An immense gulf divides us from the Islamic State in the spheres of ideology, culture, tactics and strategy, and we do not agree with all its fighting methods, actions and goals. But we have an essential point in common—the unwavering struggle against imperialism.

This point at the moment transcends any other difference that may exist, and it is the pivot of our de facto anti-imperialist alliance.”

Following this, the Partido Comunista (ML) de Panamá published a document of its direction expressing the solidarity with the line of the PMLI and in defense of Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought.

In between, there was an open letter to the Partido Comunista (ML) de Panamá by the Comité de Construcción del PC maoísta de Galiza, denoucing its position about the Islamic State.

But was it on the basis of a study of feudalism? Absolutely not. As usual in the “Marxist-Leninist” culture, when something is not considered as positive, then it can only be the product of a plot.

The Comité de Construcción del PC maoísta de Galiza says so :

“To qualify a religiously fanatical criminal gang as "anti-imperialist" is to ignore that that band of criminals and mercenaries are a mere tool of Yankee imperialism, of Zionism and of Saudi feudalism.”

In an interesting manner, in the document the word “feudalism” is used only time: to designate the Saudi regime. But what about the others countries?

Is it so hard to understand that the Islamists are the product of feudalism, and not the result of a US-Zionist plot?

Of course, the Islamists are also used by imperialists forces, by expansionists states, as we saw in Afghanistan, each country supporting a different faction.

And maybe it is hard to see because the Islamists are a reaction to the modification of the economical basis of the country through imperialism, proposing an anti-capitalist romanticism.

Nevertheless, it is wrong to understand it only through a national / anti-national perspective. It is the feudal question that must be understood. Without that there is no proper Maoism, and we see again that Maoism was correctly carried by Gonzalo and the Communist Party of Peru.

Without that, then comes subjectivism, considering one as national or anti-national i.e. anti-imperialist or pro-imperialist, when in fact it is merely reactionary as feudal...

Recently, at the end of the 2000's it was this subjectivism which caused the split in the International League of Peoples' Struggles (ILPS), expressing the different approaches of the Maoists in India and the Philippines about the struggle to be done by this anti-imperialist front.

Both always maintained the “anti-imperialist” front line, but when a responsible of the Maoists of Philippines took the decision alone to go in Beirut, it went too far... as the “International Forum for Resistance, Anti-Imperialism, Solidarity between Peoples and Alternatives” in Beirut was organized by an emanation of the Hezbollah (Party of God) in Lebanon, in presence of representatives of the Ministry of Information from Iran.

Jose Maria Sison and the Communist Party of the Philippines defended their line, as they have always done : a front can be made with practically everyone. The ILPS justified its line like this:

“It [the League] has succeeded in frustrating the attempts of a few pseudo-Maoist sectarians to undermine the unity of the League and to isolate the League in some obscure anarchist or even Trotskyite ideological corner of denying the major role of anti-imperialist states and countries and their contradictions with imperialist powers”.

According Maoism, there are no “anti-imperialist states”. The position of the Communist Party of the Philippines is wrong, because it forgets the feudal question. The line of the Indian comrades, considering unilaterally the Islamists as anti-imperialists, is also wrong.

The polemics between the PMLI, the Partido Comunista (ML) de Panamá and the Comité de Construcción del PC maoísta de Galiza are also wrong, because in the same way they forget feudalism.

Without understanding the situation of feudalism in the oppressed countries, it is not possible to understand the class struggles, and then the development of religious fanaticism appears like a “plot” when in fact it is produced by the nature of the country itself.

Here some documents are really useful :

The relationship between semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism / CPMLM [Bangladesh] - CPMLM [France]

Is Syria semi-colonial or a national state ?

CPMLM - Declaration 59 - Capitalist or semi-feudal semi-colonial countries? Trotskyism or dialectical materialism?

First of May 2015 : Understand and fight the demons of imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism and semi-feudalism!