There used to be a time, and to a large extent there still is, when our approach to the plight of immigrant Muslim workers who face rampant discrimination in many Western countries but also in non-Western ones like Russia, or to the plight of Muslim countries that have been victims of imperialist aggression from the United States, Great Britain, Israel and Russia, was simply one of reaching out. Reach out to them, defend them against stupid White Racism or murderous Western, Israeli or Russian imperialism. Reach out to them, defend them, but no effort to actively proselitysing among them, no active effort to convert them, to win them over to our ideology of Marxism or to Secularism, which is, and always must be, a key component of Marxism. „To us our way, to you yours”, that was the approach we used to have in relation to them and back in the early days of Muslim immigration into non-Muslim countries that was in the main correct.
But we cannot continue with this approach indefinitely. We can’t and we mustn’t, out of a duty to our ideology but also to Muslim proletarians we can’t and we mustn’t. What we must ALWAYS keep in mind is Mao’s words in regard to the Antiimperialist bourgeoisie. As early as 1937 Mao pointed out that the Kuomintang, or the Chinese antiimperialist bourgeoisie of those day was as much an ally against Japanese imperialism as a COMPETITOR of the Communists in the struggle for hegemony. Hegemony of the Communist Party in the antiimperialist revolution of the Chinese people against Japanese invaders was of an utmost importance, and that simply because without proletarian hegemony the Chinese people could not properly move on from the antiimperialist to the anticapitalist stage of the Democratic, Antiimperialist Revolution. The proletariat must have its hegemony or else the Democratic Revolution cannot succesfully move to the next stage after the first stage is completed. If the antiimperialist bourgeoisie wins the hegemony in the antiimperialist revolution, all the Chinese people could achieve is to swap one ruling capitalist master for another. The class struggle would be dealt a huge setback and the Kuomintang would get to rule China for decades after the Japanese were kicked out. After all, that is just what happened in most Asian countries where Communists, rather than fighting for hegemony, chose to tail the national bourgeoisie and guess what, the national bourgeoisie won, the imperialist moved out and the national bourgeoisie moved in. Or, in countries like Indonesia the Communists, though very strong, chose to stick with the national bourgeoisie and follow its lead even AFTER the imperialists got kicked out. Unlike Mao who, going as far as to disobey Stalin himself, chose to BREAK the alliance with the Kuomintang as early as 1946, Indonesian Communist leader Aidit chose not to break it, even as he was in a position to overthrow the national bourgeoisie. Albeit through a civil war, the road to power lay clearly in front of Aidit after the Dutch colonialists left Indonesia, and yet Aidit chose not to go on that risky but fruitful path. And as opportunities do not repeat themselves very often, Aidit came to pay the price, and with him, between 500 000 and 1 million Communists and Communist sympathizers in 1965-1966! For, despite of what some shrewd but not very honest analysists would have us believe, it was SUKARNO who betrayed the Indonesian Communists long before Suharto came to murder up to 1 million of our Indonesian class brothers and sisters! The Dutch left Indonesia and Aidit had a chance to move in. But Aidit chose not to move in and let Sukarno moved in. And after Sukarno came Suharto but the harm, unfortunately, had already been done.
The lessons of China and Indonesia are crystal clear: whoever fails to win hegemony in the antiimperialist revolution will get beaten without mercy. These are the lessons of class struggle and they are lessons for the whole Progressive Humanity! In China it was the national bourgeoisie who lost the hegemony and they got beaten by us without mercy, even though after Mao’s death it sadly returned to power. But in Indonesia it was the other way around, it was the Communists who lost the hegemony and they were the ones who got beaten without mercy in what can be regarded as perhaps the most overlooked genocide of the 20th century.
Class struggle, as Lenin pointed out already in 1918, has but one rule: who gets to beat who. And the struggle for hegemony inside the Antiimperialist Front is but a continuation of the old class struggle by other means. And whoever gets defeated in this battle will be beaten and beaten again, so as to over and over again blame himself for his past shortcomings. There simply is no other way.
The Muslim World presents very much the same picture as Asia did during and after World War Two. It is a huge world, comprising roughly 22% of world’s population. It also a huge reservoire of proletarians, both within it and outside it, in countries where Muslim immigrant workers are present in high numbers. Therefore it is our duty to reach out to Muslim proletarians and oppressed peasants and oppressed strata of the Muslim intelligentsia. We must do this with the same intensity as that when we reach out to Black Africans, to poor Latin Americans, to Black, Native and Hispanic peoples in the United States, to Black Aborigines in Australia, to poor Gypsies in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czezch Republic or Slovakia, and with more intensity than that when reaching out to poor Whites, as Whites are a dwindling component of the Global Proletariat whereas Blacks, Latin Americans, Muslims and Gypsies are a GROWING one.
However, the mistakes of Aidit in Indonesia INSTANTLY spring to our mind when we start looking at the way we reach out to poor Muslims in the Muslim world and outside it. For many of us Communists forget that we have a COMPETITOR for the hearts of minds of poor Muslims, in the struggle for the hearts and minds of poor Muslims we have a competitor and a competitor ON STEROIDS, for that matter! Its name is no longer national bourgeoisie but Islamist bourgeoisie, a section of the antiimperialist bourgeoisie that, although in some cases has a strictly national agenda in the short run, it has a long-term agenda that, much like ours, is UNIVERSAL, and certainly goes beyond the confines of Gaza, Afghanistan, Iran, Chechnyia and Iraq.
Can Communists afford to cede to Islamists the hegemony in the struggle against imperialism?
No, we most definitely can NOT. The example of Indonesia in 1965-1966 instantly springs to our mind, but so does the example of Iraq in the 1950s and Iran in the 1970s. In Iraq Communists ceded to Baathists, the Iraqi national capitalists, the hegemony in the struggle against imperialism. After British imperialists got kicked out Communists decided that they should still be led by Baatahists. As a result, an Iraqi version of Suharto in the guise of Saddam Hussein, came to power and DRENCHED IN BLOOD the Iraqi Communist Party, even before he got to do the same thing to Shiites and Kurds in the 1980s. Notwithstanding his great merits in the struggle against American and Israeli imperialists, Saddam REALLY WAS a great murderer of Communists, an Iraqi version of Suharto. Iranian Communists did the same mistake in regard to Khomeiny’s Islamists in the 1970s and paid the same price. They decided it was not in their best interests to resist by force and Red Terror Khomeiny’s attempts to hijack the glorious Iranian Revolution and they did pay the price. Iranian Communists mistakenly decided that Khomeiny’s thugs were not worth a Red Terror after all and what a huge price they got to pay for their gross blunder!
Now, if Suharto’s national bourgeosiei, and Saddam’s national bourgeoisie, and Khomeiny’s „moderate” Islamist bourgeoisie showed our comrades such a White- or White-Green Terror, can anyone imagine that an Islamist bourgeoisie, with the same heartless capitalist profile but with more apetite for conquest, would show us more mercy if it wins the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslim toilers?
No, they won’t show us more mercy than Suharto, Saddam and Khomeiny showed us, if anything, they will show us less!
This is why Communists CANNOT afford to allow Islamists- albeit „moderate” ones like Erdogan, who pretends to be fighting ISIS but is MORE dangerous than ISIS in the long run-, Communists CANNOT afford to allow Islamists to convert Muslim toilers to their ideology.
This is why Communists must strive to do their OWN conversion of poor Muslims, they must strive to convert Muslim toilers to THEIR ideology.
Either Communists convert Muslim toilers to their ideology or Islamists convert Muslim toilers to THEIRS, and what a long and hideous chain of White-Green Terrors lies in store for us!
That’s how stark a choice we have. We either convert Muslim toilers to our Marxist ideology and Secularism or Islamists convert Muslim toilers to their ferociously Anti-Marxist and Anti-Secular ideology! That’s how stark the choice for us is.
But how are we to do this job, how are we to perform this vital task?
Certainly NOT with our previous approach of „to us our ways and to you yours”! Certainly NOT with that naive approach that was somewhat justified when the first wave of Muslim immigrant workers arrived in Western countries and when imperialists launched their first wave of aggression against Muslim countries.
The only way to win Muslim poor over to our ideology and to Secularism is BY OPENLY AND RESOLUTELY AFFIRMING THE SUPERIORITY OF MARXISM OVER ISLAM and OF SECULARISM OVER ISLAMIC LAW!
Can someone imagine that ideologies win over others in a non-aggressive way? To those who say we should continue to be wary of saying Marxism is superior to Islam and Secularism is superior to Islamic Law, show us a single instance in Universal History when an ideology prevailed over another in a „non-aggressive way”! Even when the competing ideologies shared the same class content the ideological struggle was FAR FROM NON-AGGRESIVE! Christianity and Roman Paganism shared the same class content, they were both pro-slavery ideologies, at least from the days Christian missionaries and apologists decided it wouldn’t be so bad if they reached out to slave masters too and added the „turn the other cheek” verse to Jesus’ original message which in all available data was fiercely anti-slavery and anti-rich! From at least the days of Saint Paul on, Christianity was as pro-slavery as Roman Paganism was and yet their struggle was far from non-aggressive, as those Christians who came to feed the lions would certainly tell us were they alive today, as the noble-hearted woman scientist Hypatia, who was brutally murdered by Christian fanatics in AD 415, some time after Christianity had won the battle, would also tell us were she alive today! Even after Christianity won, the battle for Roman souls still raged fiercely. Emperor Theodosius (380-395) still felt obliged to extirpate the remnants of Paganism through sheer terror, despite Theodosius and the Roman senators who clung to their old ways representing the same slave-holding class. Turning to the battle Atheism and Secularism, albeit in bourgeoise garb at first, waged against the totalitarian dictatorship of the Christian Church, we notice exactly the SAME phenomenon! Free-thinking, Deism, Heliocentrism, Evolutionism, Atheism, Secularism, those things many of us take for granted today, they DID NOT PREVAIL IN A NON-AGGRESSIVE WAY! From the days of Copernic, Galilei and that saint among saints Giordano Bruno, the struggle for Rationalism in the Christian World was anything BUT non-aggressive! As late and close to our time as 1925 the US bourgeoisie felt compelled to put Evolution on trial, despite the US bourgeosie and Scopes representing very much the same capitalist class and world outlook.
If competing ideologies, even when they represent the same social class, tend to clash so aggresively before one of them emerges victorious, how can any sane Communist imagine that the ideological struggle between Marxism and Islamic Fundamentalism, which represent TWO DISTINCT AND DEEPLY ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES, despite being temporary allies against Western, Israeli and Russian imperialism, can be settled through „non-aggressive means”???
Well, naive ones, I’ve got news for you: the Islamists would rather kill our comrades as to this day they do in Iran or in „liberated” Tunisia, or in Pakistan, rather than settling themselves for the second place! The ideological struggle for the hearts and minds of toiling Muslims must be waged in an AGGRESSIVE fashion or else IT WILL BE UTTERLY LOST! Be peaceful and meek like Aidit was and we’re going to lose big time. Peaceful Communism does NOT exist! And in the ideological sphere NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST! There is no way we can succeed in our battle for hegemony within the Antiimperialist Front unless we openly, clearly and resolute declare that Marxism is superior to Islam and Secularism is superior to Sharia Law! There is no other way we will win unless we say those things and back them up with facts. But then again, if we don’t win a gruesome fate lies in store for us. A magnified Suharto, in the guise of a Calif or Neo-Sultan, a Suharto on steroids, is going to hold sway over more than 2 billion Muslims, the estimate for the world’s Muslim population a few decades from now! And a Suharto on steroids, holding spiritual and political sway over a gigantic mass of people, over a gigantic mass of proletarians, is something we definitely cannot afford!
Time and again we must say that Marxism is superior to Islam and that Secularism is superior to Sharia Law. Time and again we must defend Muslims against racist and imperialist aggression with one hand and affirm the superiority of our ideology with the other! Time and again we must point to those things in the Islamic Law that are UTTERLY REACTIONARY AND OPPRESSIVE and have no place in the 21 st Century, not even in the most backward Muslim countries on the world map. And we must also be flexible in our tactics, adapting our message to the various sections of the Muslim proletariat and semiproletariat that we encounter on our mission.
When dealing with Muslim women, for example, we must point to the verses in the Qur’an itself that discriminate against women, for example this verse: „Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.” („Qur’an”, Surah 4, section 2, 11). We must also point out to the utter discrimination against women when it comes to the number of spouses: men are allowed to have more sexual partners of the opposite sex but women are NOT. And we can’t properly demonstrate the superiority of Marxism over Islam when it comes to the condition of women without exposing the sheer intellectual dishonesty of the so-called „Muslim feminists” who seek to rationalize this discrimination against women by saying that „women deserve less inheritance because women are on average weaker in physical terms than men are”. But what to do with those women who are EXCEPTIONS to this rule, ye esteemed PSEUDO-feminists?? What to do with those women who posses superior physical strength to men, should they too inherit less? If your answer is yes, that it’s, without offence, merely a proof of how idiotic your „feminism” is! If your answer is no, than you lose the debate and that’s that, but since the Qur’an is the „infailible word of God”, it follows that your ideology too loses the debate against Marxism, so Marxism one Islam neil!
Islamic PSEUDO-feminists who use fallacious logic would have us disenfranchsing thin men against stronger ones, would have us disenfranchiseing African Pygmies who are 5 feet tall against their Bantu neighbours who are 6 feet tall and much stronger in physical terms, while FORGETTING that an African Pygmy could well have more kids to feed at home than a Bantu, therefore, even according to your idiotic standards, he would actually require MORE food than a Bantu who has fewer kids. Same with women, suppose a Muslim men who passes away has but one son and one daughter, with the daughter being indeed weaker in physical terms, but suppose now that the daughter in turn has 3 kids at home and the son has only begotten one. Who, even according to your fallacious logic, deserves more inheritance, the son or the daughter? That’s just another instance in which we win the debate, so Marxism 2 Islam still 0.
When dealing with Muslim people who are concerned with social equality we, again, can point to a Qur’anic verse that has the rich in clear advantage over their poor „neigbours”: „And in no wise covet those things in which Allah hath bestowed His gifts more freely on some of you than on others… ” („Qur’an”, Surah 4, Section 5, 32). So Marxism, with its scientifically proven and History-backed solution of wealth-redistribution through complete socialization of the means of production 3, Islam still 0.
When dealing with Black Americans who have begun to fall into the traps of Islamic propaganda, we can point to the no less than TEN CENTURIES in which Muslims enslaved Black Africans on account of their being „idol-worshippers”, something Islamic propaganda in the United States deliberately hides. True, as I stated in my book and in the previous article, Muslims generally didn’t enslave Blacks based on „race”, they only enslaved Blacks based on their being Animistic, but this doesn’t mean a Black person enslaved for being Animistic was more content with his fate than a Black taken by Westerners for being Black! Their suffering was the same, plus let’s not forget about the drama of CASTRATED Black boys, who were castrated by Muslims in order to be turned into eunuch, true, those boys who made into the harems were relatively well-off, but then again, 90% of the castrated boys DID NOT EVEN SURVIVE to make it into the harems they were meant to guard. This mass-castration of African boys to feed the Muslim harems on the Swahili Coast, in Sudan, Egypt and as far North as Istanbul, is easily among the most horrible atrocities in world history, on a par with overt White racism in the United States and South Africa! And hypocritical Muslim apologists have next to nothing to say on this in the „dawah” they make to African Americans with, among other things in mind, the purpose of diverting them from the ONLY TRUE IDEOLOGY OF LIBERATION, Marxism! So what we now have in this debate is Marxism 4 Islam still 0.
When dealing with Muslims who are too much concerned about accusations of adhering to a „Western ideology” we can easily point out that even though Marxism is Western in its origins the man who took it to its highest stage was NOT an Westerner but a Chinese, Mao the Great, that Islam too could be regarded as an „alien Arab” ideology by Iranian Nationalists or by Abangan Muslims in Indonesia who are simply fed up with the state- and Arab billionaire-sponsored Santri Islam that has ravaged their exquisitely beautiful and open-minded land since the latter days of Suharto, or that free-thinking in Islam actually PREDATES free-thinking in the Western Christian World, that as early as the 9th century Arab philosopher Al Kindi made a case for an ALLEGORICAL interpretation of the Qur’an, LONG BEFORE any Western Christians dared to propose an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, that as early as the 10th century the Iranian philosopher Al Razi rejected the idea prophets were intermediaries between God and Humanity, long before any Western Christian dared to come up with such „devilish idea”! Looks like free-thinking in Islam PREDATES the advent of Western imperialists, so once again Islamist fallacious reasoning gets exposed, and the score is brough to Marxism 5 Islam 0.
We must always keep in mind that any succesful conversion of Muslims to Marxism and Secularism is ABSOLUTELY UNTHINKABLE without REASONING on our part, without us keeping fast to the only force that can win you a debate: the power of ARGUMENT! Lenin used to say that Marxism’s greatest strength resides in the fact it is LOGICAL. Logic innevitably wins against fanaticism so if we stay true to the power of logic and reason, victory in the long run is ours. We must steer very clear of insulting Islam, of insulting Muslims in general. Insults are foolish and can only strengthen Islamism’s evil appeal. It is not acceptable for a Marxist to spit on the Qur’an, to burn the Qur’an, to smear the Qur’an with blood, to let pigs loose in mosques etc. Even though, as Marxists are not Pure-Land Buddhists, insults can sometimes be used against Islamists, but only in self-defense and only AFTER the debate has been won by argument. Islam as a religion must never be insulted, although certain parts in it are reactionary. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Islam, when it first came about, did uplift the Arab woman in some respects, first because it outlawed the barbaric custom of killing baby girls upon birth and second because it granted the Arab woman the right to divorce. A Marxist will never dispute the fact Islam DID constitute an improvement when it first came about. A Marxist will only point out that Islam in its entirety is NO LONGER PROGRESSIVE TODAY, at least not in regard to Marxism! Once Marxism has emerged, ALL other ideologies are rendered obsolete, so relative to Marxism they are ALL reactionary, Islam included. Therefore a Marxist will never insult Islam as a religion but only those Muslims who want to apply it in 2014 as they did in Muhammad’s time, who want to discriminate against women and against religious minorities, or kill apostates, or kill and enslave „idol-worshippers” just „because Islam says so”. Therefore a Marxists will only keep his or hers insults for those who deserve them, the Islamists, but only after the strength of arguments has been exhausted and Islamists have fallen prey to rabid and idiotic anger!
I will be as bold now as to say that a new, revised, version of the Qur’an could one day be necessary to guarantee the survival of Islam in the long run, even after the victory of Socialism and Communism on a global scale, but that is another matter entirely and for now I won’t delve into it.
Many overt Islamists but also concealed ones will blame for this article but no battle can be won without a declaration of war and I have taken this step, with the firm conviction in my mind that I have planted the seeds for a re-birth of Marxism in Muslim countries and for a long-term victory over the scourge of Islamic Fundamentalism!
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the ONLY GENUINELY LIBERATING force in the world today, it must prevail over ALL other ideologies, including those of our temporary allies against imperialism!
Defend Muslims against racism and imperialism with one hand, combat Political Islam, Islamic Fundamentalism with the other!