He’s a coward with no convictions.

Kinda throws your argument out the window, no?

“The actions of Nidal Hasan are not a program for liberation. Soldiers must organize to refuse to fight in these wars, and if they must go, to continue the proud tradition of fragging their commanders. Our liberation is a political and social question before it becomes a military question. One person will never put an end to empire, patriarchy and white supremacy on their own. The sadness of this event lies in the fact that that most soldiers are working people who don’t share the gains and interests of imperial wars, and that Nidal did not organize a revolt within the military.”

The piece clears out white supremacist and middle class Arab and Muslim perspectives on Nidal Hassan’s actions first and THEN critiques his actions in terms of their moral, political, and strategic flaws. I think this is the right approach to take. We’re not saying that every action taken against US empire is objectively good (for example, 9/11 was a total disaster and it WAS planned by right wing forces). We’re just saying that the first thing that needs to be done is to argue down racists who condemn Arab and Muslim militancy and then, once we’ve done that, we can have a serious conversation among comrades about the political, moral, and strategic problems with particular actions of resistnce to empire taken by specific Arab and Muslim folks or organizations.

In terms of the 3 Way Fight analysis I share Will’s concerns. I’ve been part of protests against folks like David Horowitz who claim that the biggest threat to America today is “Islamofacism.” At the same time, I’ve been a part of struggles in Arab and Muslim communities agianst patriarchy, heterosexism, etc. and if I lived in a place where there were actually existing and widespread Muslim fascist organizations then I would organize against them. Frankly I’m surprised that you mistook my comrades’ piece for being soft on right wing ideology/ fascism considering that this is one of the very few pieces I’ve seen that calls out US empire and right wing patriarchy/ heterosexism in Arab and Muslim communities in the same breath. Usually, liberals and progressives support one and oppose the other. We’ve been actively organizing to oppose both, and this piece is a reflection of that. If you notice, the authors even say, “We will fight patriarchal dicks wherever we find them, among the imperialist crackers, among the crackers in our own communities who think they can crack the whip on us because they have a penis.”

In addition to Will’s points, I think this last quote also should clarify how the authors are using the terms cracker. Anyone who cracks the whip to oppress another person is a cracker. This would include people of color ruling classes and the “rainbow coalition” of people of color elites who support, justify, and apologize for white supremacy and who help keep workers of color in check. C. Alexander, you suggest using the term cracker in this way is absurd. Why do you say that? In my mind, it seems like a promising way to expand anti-racist struggles outward so that they more deeply take on capitalism and patriarchy.

Finally, I agree with Will…. Unity and Struggle folks and the majority of the writers for GF do not subscribe to the idea that all white people are inherently racist because of their privileges. We should judge people based on what they DO and whether or not they are standing up against white supremacy, not who they “are”. But, hell, if someone is acting like a cracker then why not call them a cracker?

Finally, we are for building multiracial organization, in ways that Will suggested when he referenced Black Worker White Worker, CLR James, and Frantz Fanon. We will write more on this later for sure.

The piece makes it clear that the authors were not trying to justify Nidal Hasan’s actions…. they were only trying to show compassion and understanding toward him and to ask fellow Arab and Muslim folks what is to be done to make sure that noone will feel so alone and isolated that they feel compelled to do what Nidal Hasan did. I thought this was pretty clear but just to make sure, I’m pasting the second to last paragraph of the article which speaks for itself:

“The actions of Nidal Hasan are not a program for liberation. Soldiers must refuse to fight in these wars, and organize on the basis of an anti-racist and working class resistance. Our liberation is a political and social question before it becomes a military question. One person will never put an end to empire, patriarchy and white supremacy on their own. The sadness of this event lies in the fact that that most soldiers are working people who don’t share the gains and interests of imperial wars, and that Nidal did not organize a revolt within the military.”

The piece attacks white supremacist and middle class Arab and Muslim perspectives on Nidal Hasan’s actions FIRST and THEN critiques his actions in terms of their moral, political, and strategic flaws. I think this is the right approach. We’re not saying that every action taken against US empire is objectively good (for example, 9/11 was a total disaster and it WAS planned by right wing forces). We’re just saying that the first thing that needs to be done in the current situation and current moment is to argue down racists who condemn Arab and Muslim militancy and THEN, once we’ve done that, we can have a serious conversation among principled anti-racists about the political, moral, and strategic problems with particular actions of resistance to empire taken by specific Arab and Muslim individuals or organizations. I think we would all agree that killing civilian noncombattants is wrong and that in the past the most honorable revolts in the military have targeted commanding officers not foot soldiers, and have been done with the clear and public intention of stopping these commanders from ordering their troops to kill occupied peoples. All of this is important, but I don’t see why it has to be shouted from the rooftops before the authors can make all the other valid and crucial points they make about Nadil Hasan.

Of course different situations would require different approaches. If Nidal Hasan had told me beforehand he was going to take these actions the first thing I would have told him was not to do it and to think of other ways to resist…. I think the authors of the piece would probably agree with that. But we’re not talking about that situation, we’re talking about a situation where he has already taken the action and now we need to deal with all the racist bullshit that’s being directed against him and anyone that looks, talks, or prays like him.

In terms of the 3 Way Fight analysis I share Will’s concerns. I’ve been part of protests against folks like David Horowitz who claim that the biggest threat to America today is “Islamofacism.” At the same time, I’ve been a part of struggles in Arab and Muslim communities agianst patriarchy, heterosexism, etc. and if I lived in a place where there were actually existing and widespread Muslim fascist organizations then I would oppose them. Frankly I’m surprised that you mistook my comrades’ piece for being soft on right wing ideology/ fascism considering that this is one of the very few pieces I’ve seen that calls out US empire AND right wing patriarchy/ heterosexism in Arab and Muslim communities in the same breath. Usually, liberals and progressives support one and oppose the other. We’ve been actively organizing to oppose both, and this piece is a reflection of that. If you notice, the authors even say, “We will fight patriarchal dicks wherever we find them, among the imperialist crackers, among the crackers in our own communities who think they can crack the whip on us because they have a penis.”

In addition to Will’s points, I think that last quote also should clarify how the authors are using the word cracker. Anyone who cracks the whip to oppress another person is a cracker. This would include people of color ruling classes and the “rainbow coalition” of people of color elites who support, justify, and apologize for white supremacy and who help keep workers of color in check. C. Alexander, you suggest using the term cracker in this way is absurd. Why do you say that? In my mind, it seems like a promising way to expand anti-racist struggles outward so that they more deeply take on capitalism and patriarchy.

Finally, I agree with Will…. Unity and Struggle folks and the majority of the writers for GF do not subscribe to the idea that all white people are inherently racist because of their privileges. We should judge people based on what they DO and whether or not they are standing up against white supremacy, not who they “are”. But, hell, if someone is acting like a cracker then why not call them a cracker?

Finally, we are for building multiracial oragnization, in ways that Will suggested when he referenced Black Worker White Worker, CLR James, and Frantz Fanon. We will write more on this later for sure.

My point number 6 is kinda all over the place as I re-read it. It seems I did not fully expand on their remarks regarding why describe this as a white man’s war and other points along those lines. That is a separate issue from white lives being more valuable then Muslim lives.

And second I wonder if I am not fully understanding what Kdog is getting at regarding advancing/drawing the class line. My first hunch would be that Nidal Hassan’s actions did not draw the class line by his actions, although class politics were involved. My guess is that Kdog would not disagree. More can be explored along these lines. Another angle of exploration is whether this post advances/ draws a class line to some extent? I would be curious to hear responses. We could also explore what class lines are being drawn around the country regarding his actions? The post and my comments directly takes that up. I also think it is important to investigate the relationship of worker’s violence at work and how the right can use that to attack militant worker’s movements. What relationship does Hasan’s actions have in this dimension? My previous comment begin this exploration, but only superficially.

I do not have any more time tonight to give justice to these points, but I am excited to hear rebuttals in the upcoming days.

in solidarity
Will

1. Race and Class

I argue that much of the debate on whether Nidal Hassan’s actions advance the class line/ struggle are reflective of deeper differences regarding the relationship between class and race.

I will start with a few brief quotes from Selma James’s excellent Sex, Race and Class:

“identity—caste—is the very substance of class.”

“When Black workers burn the centre of a city, white Left eyes see race, not class.”

Race and class cannot be separated. Real ideological and material divisions exist in the class along the lines of race. In other words race is expression of class politics and it cannot be just understood that it is an ideological-material force that just divides the class. While it certainly does that, race creates its own modalities and terms of liberation which while are part of the class struggle, also have unique features which an abstract conception of class struggle is blind to. In the context of Anarchist/ Communist revolution each nationality also has to face down the ideological and material divisions which have held them down. This does not happen in a manner of “black and white unite and fight”—at least I don’t think so. (I also am pretty confident C Alexander and K dog agree with me on this.) In fact I argue that this phrase kills the subjective agency and process of racial pride and development which is vital to building a multi-racial community and eventually a left-revolution. I argue it happens more along the lines of the pamphlet, “Black Workers White Workers” by Noel Ignatin. I will develop the importance of BWWW later.

Concretely, what is the relationship of Nidal Hassan’s actions to class politics? Nidal Hissan has to be looked at in the context of the wars happening in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan—immense class dimensions to these wars. It is pretty clear these wars shook him to the core. Second, Nidal Hissan has to be seen in the context of the immense repression happening in the United States towards Muslims and Arabs—again tied to class politics. Third, the liberal and middle class domination of organizations has to be precisely understood in terms of class politics in Arab, South Asian and Muslim communities. These organizations come out of the woodworks and posture themselves as “good Muslims” who give advice to U.S. Empire or the racist judicial system on how to better treat Muslims.

The fact that Nidal Hassan did what he did is directly tied to the lack of a broader anti-war movement and most accurately by the domination of these organizations. These groups seek to contain the popular self-expression of more radical and libertory politics of Arabs, South Asians, and Muslims in the United States. They fear that the latter will get out of hand and out of their control. It is analogous to the role the NAACP plays in the Black community. Furthermore, these groups have consistently failed to organize on a radical and libertarian manner against the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Palestine. These groups are coming out now and giving liberal-patriotic-authoritarian-middle class interpretation of Nidal Hassan’s actions. In my mind the class dimensions and contradictions of Nidal Hassan’s actions could not be seen more clearly.
I recently saw a U.S. House of Representative declare that even when a worker walks into a workplace and shoots people, it should be declared terrorism. I would never support a law like this. The rulers are using this attack by Nidal Hassan to open up another front in their assault on workers. Revolutionaries need to recognize the class implications stretching from Nidal Hassan all the way to the point of production.

The question I keep asking myself is what if Nidal Hassan’s name was John Doe and he was a worker at Ford which is facing massive attacks by the UAW and Ford. And because John Doe’s family was going broke, was facing increased exploitation etc went into the plant and shot managers and co-workers. I don’t think the left would necessarily defend John Doe, but there would be a much more sympathetic, nuance, and contradictory reading of his self-activity. But this brings us back to the Selma James quotes I started this point with. This is a major crisis in the left.

Just like Black people and women had to fight for their agency and subjectivity in the mass movement of the 1960s, we find this happening with Muslims today. Their anger, their subjectivity, the self-activity is always second-guessed, quickly demonized, and at times ignored. And this is happening on the left, forget about the state, the media etc.

2. Three Way Fight Analysis

C. Alexander, I have a lot of agreement with the TWF analysis, but one of my consistent critiques of it has been that almost all it can see in the self-activity of Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians is the danger of fascism. While I agree with you that the Taliban and Al-Queda are straight up right wing reactionary groups or networks, I think we have fundamental disagreements on what the broader self-activity of Arabs and Muslims mean. I would include in this debate questions of the nature of Hamas and Hezbollah. They are extremely different from such groups as the Taliban and Al-Queda. It does not distinguish the ideological and historical origins and differences between these groupings.

I think you jump the gun too quickly in implying the danger of right wing fascism in Nidal Hassan’s actions. I don’t know all the details myself regarding this person, but the piece is not trying to analyze Nidal Hassan’s politics but a state of being: in ourselves and in our communities in a larger context.

3. Subjectivity of Arabs, Muslims, South Asians and people of color in general in crisis and ignored by the Left

I take a lot of inspiration from Fanon, Malcolm, and CLR regarding these questions and I believe they are fundamentally correct. What was amazing about these three revolutionaries is they realized that the historical, civilization, contemporary, and I would argue even the theoretical and organizational agencies of oppressed people of color have to be vindicated in the struggle against white supremacy and capitalism—and obviously in the path towards Revolution.
What is vital about connecting BWWW, Fanon, CLR, and Malcolm is that the leadership role of people of color also helps develop confidence, washes away the much of racism that many pocs have come to accept about ourselves, deals with the fear of own self-activity etc. etc. BWWW and CLR ties this to the point of production in a powerful way. What is clear that all these authors recognize that self-expression of race politics is vital to class politics. I am not conflating the concrete actions of Nidal Hassan with the post we posted which has a far more nuanced, angered and tortured state of being. In other words it is doing something different although Nidal Hassan is an important point of axis to revolve around and think about things.

This piece was in conversation with a tragic figure and a community. I could not disagree more that this piece was talking to the powerful. At times it lashes out at U.S. Empire, but what is the subject/ agent which is doing it. It is Muslim, Arab, and South Asian people who in an era have been brought on tv shows to prostate themselves in front of the nation to apologize every time a Muslim person sneezes. This has tormented the community, it robs people of their dignity, and it creates a forum where middle class representatives of the community propagate middle class political visions/ solutions to the crisis. An alternative is desperately needed.

Furthermore, all three authors I believe have felt that a militant reclamation of race is vital to the coming out of Arab, Muslim, and South Asian communities. This anger is not abstract or just emotional. It is a political expression of where the community has to go if it going to stop living under fear. This is tied to the community’s ability to explore difficult questions without throwing in the towel to the right that it was terrorism or something like that and opening up further class war on workers at the site of production. The community has to say “no apologies,” “Nidal Hissan was not an insane person,” “the wars in the Middle East are insane” etc etc. In my opinion this is the real becoming of a revolutionary, libertarian, race and class based Arab and Muslim community. Perhaps we just differ on how race, revolution and class intersect and how they dialectically animate one another.

Nor does subjectivity come in purely ironed out revolutionary forms espousing all the correct lines which I think is one of the major flaws of Anarchism. A lot of anarchists I have met only understand other movements when it picks up the banner of Anarchism. I am not sure where Kdog or C. Alexander fall on this, but this has been the general trend I have observed.

4. Humanism and Moral Dimensions

I believe the post pin points the Humanist and moral predicaments and tragedy of Nidal Hassan’s actions. I don’t believe the post glorifies or vindicates his actions. It explores the tensions and that is what complex humanism or morality is about. Most precisely the post tries to put his actions in a context of the Arab and Muslim community and in from a vantage point of Muslim people’s humanity. In other words a humanism foregrounding the needs and crisis of a certain community which is what I believe BWWW, Fanon, etc try to do in their works.

This post also tries to reclaim the soul of a person who is now going to be put on national trial by the nation. Furthermore each time this is done, it is not only the soul of one man, but the entire Muslim people. “Why do Muslim people do this” “Is Islam inherently violent” etc etc.
I do not feel the post took up Nidal Hasan abstractly or disregarded the soldiers who died. Many of us have seen people dying before our eyes. I know what it is like and am fully aware of what it means for a family and other loved ones. At the same time there is the real experiences of Arabs and Muslims in this country and around the world. They are not abstractions either. This is broadly related to the visceral and violent experiences pocs are experiencing in the U.S. and around the world. And the post explores what Nidal Hissan was possibly groing through, what Muslims go through, and what the authors go through. Instead of making an abstract class the subject, we posited Arabs and Muslims as agents of the class and we felt putting out subjectivity on the same piece of paper as Nidal Hassans. All Muslims and I would argue the entire American working class has to deal with the soul of Nidal Hassan.
5. Strategy and Nidal Hassan’s actions

I don’t think I have much to add, other than the fact that the post stated what the authors think is the way forward which is to organize, organize, and organize. I will not comment more unless there is confusion over this.
6. Cracker Debate

First, I believe all three authors are against the national bourgiousies of not only the United States, but importantly, the rest of the ruling bloc of the global order in this period. We all recognize this is a multi-racial ruling coalition more or less. At the same time the dominant form of racism expressed by this coalition has been white supremacy. This is probably obvious to everyone.

This still leaves the question regarding the cracker references. (I am assuming no one disagrees with sentences like “truth is that white, American lives are worth more than Muslim lives.” I will not explore this for now assuming we have agreement.)

Part of the strength of this essay when the three of us wrote it up was that was not only an anyltical piece, but also a reflection of the anger and torment we live with and beielve many Muslim people live with, and also at times was a piece that played with prophecy. We did not want to put out only an analytical piece, or just an anger filled piece etc. We felt that all three forms were legitimate expressions and that especially the anger was called for considering the context of anti-Muslim racism in the last ten years. A lot of us have been in rooms with liberals, whites, and pocs who always tell the militants to calm down and that their rage does not ehlp the conversation. We have always felt that these people could not be more out of touch with the grassroots. At times we have had the grassroots to support us and times we have found ourselves in the extreme minority, but either way we have felt as principled anti-racists that this an important psycho-spritual dimension of people of color politics which has to be reclaimed.

Connected to this point is that there is a tradition in people of color communities (Malcolm in mind here) of calling racist whites “crackers.” In this context I do not think there is anything wrong with this. None of the three authors have what is known in the left as “privilege politics” or “identity politics.” When I look at the article’s usage of term “cracker” that is pretty obvious. I stand by the position that patriarchal men and that racist whities need to be made fun of. I definitely feel leave the door wide open for white folks to be not crackers. They just don’t need to be racists. I don’t feel this is a controversial position.

I hope this clarifies certain dimensions of the post.
In solidarity and respect
Will

http://vimeo.com/5995000

I really encourage you to take the 5 minutes to watch this

THis is some WILD SHIZZ. THANKS PEPS for having such a thought provoking convo!

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/

the movie looks interesting. i’ll have to put it on the docket. i actually just watched “Jarhead” with Jamie Foxx and Jake Gyllenhaal. i think it captures something similar to what “The Good Soldier” might be trying to do. without giving anything away it shows how soldiers are told to be and do one set of things that doesn’t match at all with their reality as human beings, and how they try to carve their own understandings and relationships with what they have.

the only thing the film is missing, which might be the same with the”The Good Soldier” is how and where this can be transformed into working class resistance inside the military, but i suppose these limitations are to be expected.

I’ve been reading this site along side with the updates on this blog and I can’t help to believe it’s some how very relevant. Could someone tell what they think?

i don’t think that’s a fair caricature of fatima’s points. i understood her saying that the dominant organized ideological tendency in our community is liberalism, which entails support for US Empire. this needs to be fought against from inside our community.

to do this it is worth trying to understand what our people are saying, doing and thinking. there is a right wing inside our community, but individual acts are often times not ideologically committed. they are contradictory.

so i would conclude this point with your words that “there are multiple forces and ideas at war with the System,” so every time a Muslim lashes out it can’t simply be written off as “Jihadi fascism.” this is a stale analysis that, unfortunately, is common among both the Right and the Left, which fails to recognize the richness and diversity of thought and action among our people. Nidal Hasan’s acts are indicative of these tensions and contradictions.

i’ve heard many on the Left say they are for class struggle, but i’m curious what they think that looks like. the fight against white supremacy has class content, but it will not be perfect in all its forms. we can’t impose an abstract notion of class struggle on real divisions within the working class. if we’re going to wait around for the perfect political line or the perfect movement, then we better get comfortable.

fatima’s other point, i believe, is that we need to pull away from and defeat the way the racists are framing this issue. insinuating that he might be a Jihadi fascist doesn’t do this — instead it aids the Right. there is almost no one out there vindicating — with our contradictions, tensions, warts and all — the soul of Arab and Muslim resistance. the anti-war movement couldn’t even come to a consensus on this.

we need to rest control of how we understand this from the racists and the Right. we’re not defending his actions — we’re trying to understanding it.