portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war | political theory

Paris Attacks - Bourgeois Terrorism

statement on Paris attacks from Internationalist Communist Perspective
No, it is not a war. It is preparation for war, while the major states of America, Europe, Russia and Asia are already revving up the engines. Whether it's "terrorism" or "the war on terror", they both stand for advance notice of the coming war.

It is not the war of the Islamic State against the West. It is the war of competing imperialisms. Even if the perpetrators of this umpteenth act of terror are youths pushed to fanaticism, the instigators are to be found in the corridors of power of the state authorities of the entire world.
The Islamic State is not the expression of the impoverished classes of the Arab countries and it does not defend their interests. Nor does it even represent the armed force of Arab national bourgeoisies wishing to free themselves of foreign, ex-colonial or imperialist oppression.

Islamic State's strength lies in those who direct it from abroad; they are mercenary troops who conveniently hide their trade behind the smokescreen of religion. Their direct financiers are some of the petro-monarchies of the Gulf, engaged in an internecine struggle, and their discreet protector is the imperialist front currently lined up behind the USA, which arms them and sends them off to fight, or fights them, according to the colossal interests of all the capitalist powers, strangled by the economic crisis for which they see no end.

Bourgeois propaganda turns the truth on its head: in the Arab countries the pretense of Islamic revolution only hides the reaction of the dominant bourgeois and landed classes behind a thick ideological fog, and its primary victims are the proletarians of these countries. The daily bombings in the squares and markets of Baghdad, Aleppo, Islamabad, Beirut, Damascus, Kabul, Tripoli and Istanbul bear an anti-proletarian mark, one of wars between bourgeois gangs.

Communists do not deliver a moral judgement on the war and on its atrocities; they know that violence is intrinsic to class society, founded exclusively on the power of dominion and on terror, even when it is not necessary to use it directly but only to threaten it. Terrorism is an instrument of war, which can be used between the states as well as between classes. This is the terrorism employed by some bourgeois states against others, and of all states against the international working class, in order to divide it according to artificial ideological barriers and to prevent the possibility of any re-emergence of class unity. We know "campaigns of violence" all too well. They are warnings and signals that, for nearly a half century, also in Europe, the bourgeoisies believe are useful to hurl at one another - though obviously it is proletarians who bear the brunt.

A few hundred dead are nothing for the monstrous world of capital. The God of profit demands far more human sacrifices. Militarism is the one true essence of capital, in particular of the western imperialist democracies that talk about peace but are busy preparing the next round of global butchery. A war built, instigated and desired for the survival of Capital, at the cost of millions of proletarian lives.

The dominant classes profit from every pretext and from every popular emotion to subordinate the working class to their discipline, to terrorize it, to squeeze it between the threat of foreign violence and the violence which the bourgeoisie applies directly, and constantly reinforces.

Communists therefore keep their distance from every abstract condemnation of violence, from the bourgeoisie's every utterance of false piety and indignation, and from every demonstration of solidarity with states and with the bourgeoisies of the world, first and foremost with those of their own countries.

The prolonged agony of capitalist society will unleash an unimaginable series of horrors and lies, even beyond those of the First and Second World Wars. In response the working class, and above all its communist party, must be ready to maintain an uncompromisingly firm line against everyone and everything, first in respect of the truth of its class science, and then, alone, against all of its enemies.

Capitalism will not die if not through a violent death at the hands of the communist proletariat. The only possible "war on terrorism" is the one against this barbarous social system, therefore the only one that has communist revolution as its final objective.

By contrast those who accept capitalism, in any of its forms and in any of its guises, is compelled to accept its present-day terrorism and will be condemned to submit to its coming war of the future.

homepage: homepage: http://international-communist-party.org

Joseph Stalin demanded MANY human sacrifices 18.Nov.2015 13:51


Sorry guys 18.Nov.2015 14:24

Mike Novack

That your ideology believes religions is just a bourgeois construct doesn't make it so (besides the obvious reality that we can document the existence of religions for thousands of years, and capitalism has only existed for a few hundred).

Reality check --- there are humans who believe just as fervently in their religion as you believe in Marxism. Just as willing to fight, kill, and die for it as you are for your revolution.

This time I 100% agree with Mike 18.Nov.2015 18:27


holy smokes,

what is it about the recent Paris attack that has brought an AVALANCHE of political prevaricating from both the right and left?!

and furthermore (as Mike alludes to ^above) what is so "unique" about the attacks in Paris making it 'worthy' of attention or commentary, pro or con or from whatever angle?

The main thing to "remember" about last week's attacks (in both Paris and Beirut) is that a documented CIA/Western State-sponsored, recently-emerged organization is behind it.

From there, follow the money (and related connections) apparently though, in this instance the 'Marxists' weren't able to follow their progenitor's 'cui bono' advice....

'Islamic State' as a Western Phenomenon? 19.Nov.2015 20:29

by Ramzy Baroud

March 19, 2015

No matter how one attempts to wrangle with the so-called 'Islamic State' (IS) rise in Iraq and Syria, desperately seeking any political or other context that would validate the movement as an explainable historical circumstance, things refuse to add up.

Not only is IS to a degree an alien movement in the larger body politic of the Middle East, it also seems to be a partly western phenomenon, a hideous offspring resulting from western neocolonial adventures in the region, coupled with alienation and demonization of Muslim communities in western societies.

By "western phenomenon," I refrain from suggesting that IS is largely a creation of western intelligence as many conspiracy theories have persistently advocated. Of course, one is justified to raise questions regarding funds, armaments, black market oil trade, and the ease through which thousands of western and Arab fighters managed to reach Syria and Iraq in recent years. The crimes carried out by the Assad regime, his army and allies during the four-year long Syria civil war, and the unquenchable appetite to orchestrate a regime change in Damascus as a paramount priority made nourishing the anti-Assad forces with wannabe 'jihadists' justified, if not encouraged.

The latest announcement by Turkey's foreign minister Meylut Cavusoglu of the arrest of a spy "working for the intelligence service of a country participating in the coalition against ISIS" - presumably Canada - allegedly for helping three young British girls join IS, was revealing. The accusation feeds into a growing discourse that locates IS within a western, not Middle Eastern discourse.

Still, it is not the conspiracy per se that I find intriguing, if not puzzling, but the ongoing, albeit indirect conversation between IS and the West, involving French, British and Australian so-called "Jihadists," their sympathizers and supporters on one hand, and various western governments, intelligence services, rightwing media pundits, etc on the other.

Much of the discourse - once upon a time located within a narrative consumed by the "Arab Spring," sectarian divisions and counter revolutions - has now been transferred into another sphere that seems of little relevance to the Middle East. Regardless of where one stands on how Mohammad Emwazi morphed into a "Jihadi John," the conversation is oddly largely removed from its geopolitical context. In this instance, it is an essentially British issue concerning alienation, racism, economic and cultural marginalization, perhaps as much as the issue of the "born, raised and radicalized" attackers of Charlie Hebdo is principally a French question, pertaining to the same socioeconomic fault lines.

The conventional analysis on the rise of IS no longer suffices. Tracing the movement to Oct 2006 when the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), uniting various groups including al-Qaeda was established, simply suggests a starting point to the discussion, whose roots go back to the dismantling of the Iraqi state and army by the US military occupation authority. Just the idea that the Arab republic of Iraq was lead from 11 May, 2003 until 28 June, 2004 by a Lewis Paul Bremer III, is enough to delineate the unredeemable rupture in the country's identity. Bremer and US military chiefs' manipulation of Iraq's sectarian vulnerabilities, in addition to the massive security vacuum created by sending an entire army home, ushered in the rise of numerous groups, some homegrown resistance movements, and other alien bodies who sought in Iraq a refugee, or a rally cry.

Also conveniently missing in the rise of "jihadism" context is the staggering brutality of Shia-dominated governments in Baghdad and militias throughout Iraq, with full backing by the US and Iran. If the US war (1990-1), blockade (1991-2003), invasion (2003) and subsequent occupation of Iraq were not enough to radicalize a whole generation, then brutality, marginalization and constant targeting of Iraqi Sunnis in post-invasion Iraq have certainly done the job.

The conventional media narrative on IS focuses mostly on the politicking, division and unity that happened between various groups, but ignores the reasons behind the existence of these groups in the first place.

The Syria civil war was another opportunity at expansion sought successfully by ISI, whose capital until then was Baquba, Iraq. ISI was headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a key player in the establishment of Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Nusra Front). The highly cited breakup between al-Baghdadi and al-Nusra leader Mohammed al-Golani is referenced as the final stage of IS's brutal rise to power and ISI becoming ISIL or ISIS, before settling finally at the current designation of simply "Islamic State," or IS.

Following the division, "some estimates suggest that about 65% of Jabhat al-Nusra elements quickly declared their allegiance to ISIS. Most of those were non-Syrian jihadists," reported Lebanon's al-Safir.

Militants' politicking aside, such massively destructive and highly organized occurrences are not born in a vacuum and don't operate independently from many existing platforms that help spawn, arm, fund and sustain them. For example, IS' access to oil refineries says nothing about its access to wealth. To obtain funds from existing economic modes, IS needed to tap into a complex economic apparatus that would involve other countries, regional and international markets. In other words, IS exists because there are those who are invested in their existence, and the highly touted anti-IS coalition has evidently done little to confront this reality.

Particularly interesting is the rapidly changing focal point of the debate, from that pertaining to Syria and Iraq, to a western-centric discussion about western-styled jihadists that seem removed from the Middle East region and its political conflicts and priorities.

In a letter signed by over a hundred Muslim scholars that was published last September, the theologians and clergymen from around the Muslim word rightly disowned IS and its bloodthirsty ambitions as un-Islamic. Indeed, IS' war tactics, are the reverse of the rules of war in Islam, and have been a God-send to those who made successful careers by simply bashing Islam, and advocating foreign policies that are predicated on an irrational fear of Muslims. But particularly interesting was the Arabic version of the letter's emphasis on IS's lack of command over the Arabic language, efficiency which is a requirement for making legal Islamic rulings and fatwas.

The letter confronts the intellectual arrogance of IS, which is based mostly on a misguided knowledge of Islam that is rarely spawned in the region itself. But that intellectual arrogance that has led to the murders of many innocent people, and other hideous crimes such as the legalization of slavery - to the satisfaction of the numerous Islamophobes dotting western intellectual landscapes - is largely situated in a different cultural and political context outside of the Middle East.

In post-September 11 attacks, a debate concerning Islam has been raging, partly because the attacks were blamed on Muslims, thus allowing politicians to create distractions, and reduce the discussion into one concerning religion and a purported "clash of civilizations." Despite various assurances by western leaders that the US-led wars in Muslim countries is not a war on Islam, Islam remains the crux of the intellectual discourse that has adjoined the military "crusade" declared by George W. Bush, starting with the first bomb dropped on Afghanistan in 2001.

That discourse is too involved for a transitory mention, for it is an essential one to the IS story. It is one that has involved various schools of thought, including a breed of Muslim "liberals," used conveniently to juxtapose them with an "extremist" bunch. Yet between the apologists and the so-called Jihadists, a genuine, Muslim-led discussion about Islam by non-coopted Muslim scholars remains missing.

The intellectual vacuum is more dangerous than it may seem. There is no question that while the battle is raging on in the Middle East region, the discourse itself is growingly being manipulated and is becoming a western one. This is why IS is speaking English, for its language complete with authentic western accents, methods, messages and even the orange hostage jumpsuits, is centered in some other sociopolitical and cultural context.