For them, to choose Palestine in the name of the “national liberation of the peoples” would be the most internationalist answer! So, they sell us an “internationalism” which is its opposite, because internationalism means fighting against all imperialist camps, for the international class struggle, for the perspective of world revolution which alone can end war.

What? What’s the first step in the liberation and blooming of the Palestinian working class other than the end to colonial oppression, a step which at the same time weakens the chains of imperialism? Which “imperialist camp” is strengthened by the liberation of Palestine?

Great, this site has another article called “Support for ‘Free Palestine’ means support for imperialist war” (ignore the beginning, their response is the second section); they appeal to Rosa Luxembourg’s critique of Lenin’s theory of national liberation being progressive as it strikes a blow to imperialist chains by bringing up that many nations may and have become “reactionary formations,” yet this isn’t the point. It doesn’t refute both that this is the only way to weaken workers’ opportunism in the imperialist nations, and that this is a step forward in the development of the productive forces and therefore the proletariat in these nations.

Oppression and oppressed are superstructural features that have no direct relation with the basis and an abolition of a particular form of oppression has no fundamental impact on the material conditions of capitalist society. The fight of the oppressed or even the elimination of oppression of Palestinians, Blacks or women – if this would ever be possible under capitalism - does not abolish this very system. On the contrary, as is the case with the Palestinians, we can even expect that their “liberation” from the oppressing Israeli regime, if it ever succeeded at all, would most certainly lead to an oppressive regime like the other Islamic states in the region and thus not to the undermining of capitalism – not to mention its abolition.

Oh my God these people are such idiots. Whether socialist or not, the liberated Palestinian state would be a step forward in allowing new development of the productive forces and of the class struggle as well as striking a blow to Western imperialism in the Middle-East, and so would be progressive wrt to the world imperialist struggle. “Liberating a nation from colonialism will not guarantee the abolition of capitalism at once, therefore we must reject it” is just left-communist drivel.

In his theory Lenin did not only start from superstructural features, he also divided countries in the world into three main types and for each of these three types he developed different politics. But the working class is one international class and every policy that seeks to define the best tactics for each part is in contradiction with the principle that the proletarian revolution has to take place on a world-wide level and not according to specific conditions in this or that part of the world.

You want an international proletarian revolution, unity of the working class? Great, there can be no working class, no proletariat as the majority in Palestine, if industry is prevented from being developed there, if the nation is kept in colonial underdevelopment. As for the division of the working class, it was Marx who explained the English working class had become “bourgeois proletarians” due to the special interest of keeping British colonial exploitation in place to reap the benefits in bribery.

In contrast to the comrade, we are convinced that Gaza is not only a national entity but that the regime in Gaza has also several functions of a bourgeois state: it collects taxes and has an army, a juridical apparatus, detention facilities, intelligence and police personal, etc. It is the Hamas de-facto administration which exercises these state functions and has, since 2005, under the direction of a highly centralised command centre, been able to fire thousands rockets into Israeli territory. There is only one conclusion possible: the war in Gaza is a war between two imperialist states.

Because Gaza is ruled by Hamas under a state apparatus, Gaza is imperialist , and so the struggle is nothing but a war between Palestinian and Israeli imperialists over land! To say this, you have to ignore the class character of Israeli occupation, which was undertaken to prevent revolution among oppressed Jewish workers via opportunism/bourgeois nationalism. The ICC cements their complete lack of understanding and Western Marxist brain rot with the allegation that “from the river to the sea” does indeed mean the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population in occupied Palestine, “a nakba in reverse.” And so the removal of colonial occupation, an act which both hastens the class contradictions within the “Israeli” population and allows the development of the Palestinian proletariat, is no different than the slaughter of Palestinians in the name of Western settler-colonialism for the very purpose of stalling the class war, or as ICC would say: “there is indeed no difference between the nationalism of Israel and the nationalism of Palestine.”

This is the worst attempt at Marxist analysis I have ever read. In their attempt at materialist analysis they have developed an entirely idealist conception of things. In their hands, Marxist classes have become no better than thought categorise, as these “Marxists” have gutted them of their actual content. The mere idea of the proletariat is all they’re concerned with, nothing to do with the actual life of the proletariat in their specific conditions, conditions which facilitate or hinder self-consciousness; nothing to do with what is actually historically Progressive in a given situation, but merely the idea that the proletariat is progressive. There is not a single analysis of material conditions to be had, merely a comparison of abstract class interests. And this is not to mention their continual misuse of language that makes it feel like it was written by a child. “Foundation stone,” confusing foundations and corner stone; “historical interest of the proletariat,” they here must mean class interest, as historical interest can only refer to the specific, historically constituted, interests of certain sections of the proletariat and is thus not the universal class intrest of the proletariat, etc. I’m gonna sob, western Marxism is so cooked.

dumb dumb trot website