Friday, March 31, 2006

Quote of the Day

"Obsessed by old and outlived formulas, you continue to regard the Stalinist state as a workers state. I cannot and will not follow you in this. " ~~ Natalia Sedova in My Resignation From the 4th International... taken from:

Theory and Practice

Once Lenin said: A revolutionary party is guided by a revolutionary theory.

Indeed, the theory provides the vision for activism on a practical scale. Let us check that out for a bit. The Leftist Democratic Movement argues that they have no ideologies but they are leftists. Indeed, how can that be? What can their ultimate vision be? Above all, if they lack no ideologies, then what makes them leftists in the first place?

The Vision is important. The beauty of Marxism that it does not demand people to go down the streets and just attack the standing authority, on the contrary, it does as follows:

1) Defines the Nature of the battle
2) Explains in details how the battle reached such critical points
3) Places the alternatives of action (Unions, Underground, Cultural Debates, Parties, Student Activism...etc)
4) Targets the audience: The Proletariat from all over the world involved despite Religion, Race, Gender, Color, Ethnicity, and (special thanks to Tony Cliff) Tendency. The battle is on a global scale, and Lebanon itself is progressing to the global scale as our'beloved' Prime Minister is joining our nation to the WTO. The disadvantages are plenty, the only advantage that our battle would officially be upgraded to the standard of the world.
5) Defines the nature of the battle (Underground/Upperground/Revolutionary)
6) Demands the total emancipation and places the phases to follow in any case scenario
7) Tells us exactly the obstacles and how hard it is to achieve the goals (not impossible as LCP and DLM preach to justify their reactionary alliances and degeneration)

Without the vision, we would each speculate what to do? Or each person would call him/herself marxists/leftists (due to the fact sadly few view the difference) would imagine their own goals. I remember plenty in DLM (since it is much loose than LCP) preaching humanitarianism as leftists which is not true. Our vision is (at least in my personal opinion) utmost humanitarian, but within the scientific steps of Communism (Communism ie Not Stalinism/Russian Nationalism).

Lenin, Trotsky, Tony Cliff, and plenty others argued that Marxism has to be studied and understood while taking direct action. Indeed, it is a huge field with plenty of dimensions, some of the dimensionsa are:

1) Historical Materialism
2) Philosophy
3) Internationalism
4) Dialictical Materialism
5) Science of Revolution
6) Arts
7) Sociology and Causality Principles (Not Teleological)
8) Party/Movement Building
9) Plenty others

As Comrade James Connolly would say: "For our demands most moderate are, We only want the earth." []


Quote of the Day (Sorry Long One but love it)

"Don't forget anything!
We have seen how when war broke out, the masses were captured for the capitalist aims of the war with enticing melodies from the ruling classes. We have seen how the shiny bubbles of demagogy burst, how the foolish dreams of August vanished, how, instead of happiness, suffering and misery came over the people; how the tears of war widows and war orphans swelled to great currents; how the maintenance of the three-class disgrace, the unrepentant canonization of the Quadrinity – semi-absolutism, junker rule, militarism, and police despotism – became bitter truth... The main enemy is at home! "~Karl Liebknecht

Marxism Versus Feminism

I will use a quote {taken from an excellent writing by Trotsky and borrowed by two writers (and I fromthem) and not read with my debaters}:

"To alter the position of woman at the root is possible only if all the conditions of social, family, and domestic existence are altered." (Trotsky, Women and the Family, p. 45.)

Ok, I was out with a friend who is supposedly a leftist & a feminist... ends up as a feminist (ultra). Here is the case scenario, the glitch the feminists keep repeating within the marxist science is that marxism is reductionist only concerning the patriach system which enslaves women... their arguement is as follows: that is the only mistake Marx did because Patriarchy came before the Capitalist System. Sadly the debater I was debating with ended up accusing me as a classical marxist when I explained the process of evolution and her only reply was Secretary Rice is there with power. I wish she bothered to listen because I ended up as ignorant. To say I do not believe in soft marxist, classic, or whatever, I am simply a Communist (sometimes resolve into the label Trotskyste to avoid being mistaken for the LCP or DLM).

The irony of the debate was that she argued that she studied Marxism for 3 years and then switched. What intrigues me that Habermas and Linklater are not really Marxists. When I asked what about the pioneers, such as Clara Zatkin, Jenny Languet, Eleanor Marx, Laura Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, Vera, and plenty more, she never heard of them except Rosa. I go with plenty of patience and ask, what did you read about the core of the Communist School such as Karl Marx or Fredrieche Engels, and she replies the Communist Manifesto and stresses on the notion that Engels was the feminist of the two (with pride). Let me dwell a bit on that, 3 years of studying Marxism and only zilch read on Plekhanov, Kautsky, LaFarque, Lenin, Trotsky, Cliff, Higgins, and already condemned the whole thing? With more patience, I asked: "Have you read The German Ideology?" Guess what, she never heard of it... I will not enter the debate on Marxism versus Feminism, but I would like to understand how many people claim they understood marxism and then condemned it without understanding it. Let us be reasonable, there are Isaac Deutcher, Alan Woods, Raya, Zinoviev, Pendelis Pouliopolis, James Cannons, Krupskaya, Natalia Sedova, Alexandra Kollontai, Earnst Mandel and plenty plenty more... and then the feminists would choose people and insist they are Marxists, such as Habermas, I mean it is fascinating how people condemn our science without even bothering to know what the heck it is all about. I am more fascinated that a person spent three years studying Marxism and ended up denouncing it with the logic of Feminism, just on the basis that Patriarchy was Pre-Capitalism. Marxism deals with the evolution of the first society till current times, and even predicts to the future. It is in the German Ideology that Marx saw the entire world unified by a market where all its civilians are interacting. How can she prefer Feminism without really understanding us and worse of all, claims to understand us. Let us dwell on the issue just a little bit more, how can she fail to see that the values that generated then where values to sustain a certain mode of production and a mean of oppression? Remember it took one revolution to replace the other, and one incident to shift the society from era to another. After all, as Marx would stress, isn't the base of change taking place via Social Interaction? By the way, they never read Engel's masterpiece "The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State" nor the masterpiece: "The Sacred Family." At The Sacred Family or German Ideology, rather argue: "We understand Marxism and we prefer Feminism".

Let us dwell one more step into the case scenario, the counter-argument was Freud, fine, we as Marxists never opposed the evolution of science, on the contrary science is the means to rid ourselves of certain value (TV) while we go by Trotsky's formula that the more an individual is enlightned, the less tendency to be superstitious. Freud would fit the perfectly in terms of sublimating the frustration of a class to their work (won't dwell on it yet... but worthwhile to check on it).

It is 4:15 in the morning, I need sleep, I will return to the topic again, with sites to check on. I just want to keep it as a reminder that that fanatic school of fanaticism should not accuse males as being biased in their perspective for not thinking in terms of Patriarchy and Gender. We do think of Patriarchy but as a means of oppression to prevent class awareness (something they do not believe in which class awareness was reduced to simple awareness of equality?). How can the Feminists forget that Patriarchy's mod of repression rose with the concept of private property (quoting Evelyn Reed). Patriarchy is a direct result of class struggle.

Let us look at history, who announced the birth of May Day three years after the Chicago Massacres in the 19th Century, Eleanor Marx (along with Avaling and Engels). Who Triggered the first act of demonstrations by female workers? Again it was the Second International. Who was the first to do surveys on Women as equal to men and asked what conditions they required? It was the Marx in the First International. Who initiated Working Women's Day? Guess? The Second International. Who celebrates Womans' Day (just as May day was dropped for Labour Day), the Feminists. The elimination from Patriarchy is through Class Struggle.


International Working Women's Day - By V.I. Lenin :

From the rice fields to the modern day call centers - Marxism vs. Feminism. Part one - Sonia Priviato

The origins of women's oppression - Rob Sewell

By Ana Mu and Alan Woods

The Family and Ceremony ~ Leon Trotsky

Revolution Betrayed (Ch. 7) ~ Leon Trotsky

Only in Conjunction With the Proletarian Woman Will Socialism Be Victorious ~ Clara Zatkin

Lenin on the Women’s Question (Interview With Lenin) Clara Zatkin

The Woman Question - Edward Aveling and Eleanor Marx Aveling

Is Biology Woman’s Destiny? ~ Evelyn Reed

(Plenty plenty more available if anyone needs more, just leave a comment) My advice to the Feminists (to those who have reverse racism at least) to avoid the gap which Sexists perform. As a Marxist, I believe in equality despite Race, Religion, Gender, Color, and Class. And the latter has suffered differences from the four mentioned before it. I just hate how we are accused: "because you are men you fail to see such relations with Patriarchy...", I do believe fanaticism blinded that faction of feminists to dwell on the details. At least we got the Dialectical Materialism to allow us formulate critiques of each framework while Historical Materialism explains the present and assists us to expect the future.

Hasta La Victoria Siempre
Marxist From Lebanon

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Why 14th March 2005 is Not a Leftist Revolution

I remember few weeks after 14th March 2005 took place, (which I was participant in), plenty people told me that this was either the workers' revolution or the marxist revolution, or simply the leftist revolution. I would like to skim through that a bit and see:

First: In order to develop a workers' revolution, you need class awareness:

In this case, it was a sectarian line-up to oppose syrian presence in Lebanon specially when MP Bahia Harriri called the Sunni to come down to the streets in reaction to Nasrallah's "crowd" along with his allies. Marxists argue plenty of times that the workers' revolution is when the workers hit the streets and throw down the government. We may believe in hitting the barricades, not grabbing AK47s, to defend the demonstrators. The revolution may end up bloody because the tyrannical government would shoot the defenders of the workers' rights. Class awareness takes place due to either economic crisis or the Marxist movement is highly active in preaching the workers their rights and their capacities.

Second: Workers' Revolution annhilates Feudal or Semi-Feudal systems

In such a case, I do not recall in the name of the workers the demonstrators went down. They went down to establish to hail anti-Syrians logans and demand the truth (a la Future Harriri owned TV style). Perhaps a small faction went down in hope of better work conditions, but that was not the case as none of the speakers spoke of class struggle and how the rich are getting richer at the people's expense. Interesting enough, we got plenty of feudal titles bestowed upon the heroes of 14th March: Sheikhs and Beiks, if only we had prince Talal Irslan, then we would have had a prince as well. It is noted that plenty of the figures of 14th March inheritted their positions from their families.

Third: Workers' Revolution demands a better work conditions and tends to Nationalize Means of Production for the Proletariat's sake

Currently, the Future Block led by MP S. Hariri (who has a Prime Minister) are celebrating the closeness of Lebanon of entering the WTO and assisting the IMF in liberating the already liberated Market, but within IMF standards and general agreements. The Workers' conditions are doomed to become worse as the gigantic Transnational Corporations are going to invade Lebanon with their dumping policy of wiping out domestic production. Minister of Agriculture already celebrates the abolishion of domestic agriculture is good in face of international corporations specialized in those. Just ask any of the anti-WTO activist organizations in Lebanon. Plenty of workers will be replaced with foreign cheaper labor (as the international standards of WTO indicate in terms of free market), and the Proletariat will be thrown out of work while the newly immigrant ones will suffer racism. Already Lebanon has foreign labor that undergoes partially racism.

Fourth: The Head of the Workers' Revolution is the People's Party

Well, on 14th of March, indeed it was a good day to get rid of Syrian monopoly over Lebanese economic market (and controling the elites for their national and economic securities), and it is good to disregard French and U.S. pressures on Syria as well as the entire international community that condemned Syria's interventions in post-R. Hariri's assasination era. In a workers' revolution, it is the priority that the people's party (in such a case real Marxist Party) to lead , after all it is such a party that teaches the rest their rights and hence the multiplication factor continues. In 14th March, we had two parties that had leftist names: the Progressive Socialist Party and Democratic Leftist Movement. The PSP have a Baik for a leader who inherited his position from his father. To continue a bit more, they are a party that represents the Sect of Druze and one of the three sectarian major parties. The other are the Democratic Leftist Movement, who I mentioned a lot earlier, and had nothing to do in terms of balance of power. They are one of the small parties that bandwagoned with the stronger right winged parties in order to make it. Their central committees privately say screw our allies, but at least we are changing Lebanon for the better. No Workers' movement can change Lebanon for the better unless they are at the top of the pyramid guiding the workers for their victory. Lenin always made sure that the participants used to know exactly why they were undergoing a revolution, while Trotsky focused on the importance of knowledge as a power for the workers. The DLMs preach an elite style of Leftism where a person allies with the right wing to get a chair in the parlaiment and change in the topic, disregarding the fact that their allies would never approve of such policies ( they produce any).

Fifth, The Workers' Revolution Causes a Chain Reaction through out the Region

This comes in the line of the Permenant Revolution Theory. The concept is that once a real Marxist revolution takes place, it will cause a chain of revolutions through out the region. This what the October Revolution caused in 1917. Afterwards 6 nations decided to join the Union, and a huge chain of revolutions took place globally. No wonder John Reed called his Book: "Ten Days that Shook the World." In Lebanon, we simply replaced one class of Bourgeoisie with another. It is exactly what Marx and Engels describe in the simple but astonishing book "The Communist Manifesto", that plenty of revolutions are led by bourgeoisie against others for profit maximizing goals. After all, more money means more social strengths. The "Revolution" was nothing but international pressures, or else to borrow an idea of aMarxist from Israel/Palestine that focuses on the theme if the Lebanese "Demonstration/Revolution" was really a workers' revolution, not only the Arab nations will stop it militarily, but even Israel will assist them. This was just a sectarian block allied against a Sect and its political allies who are in allegiance to Syria. Sadly, such a movement ended up with ultra-Lebanese nationalism and its DLM faction as the fascists within it (rather the Phalangists) since Fascism is simply in a summary of a mathmatical equation: Fascism = Socialism + Ultra-Nationalism. To focus 14th March's ultra-nationalistic factor, they hail Lebanon first logic, and sadly the leftists think in terms of workers as well because politically the country can not support currently to think of social welfare or workers' rights...

Sixth, The Workers' Revolution Eliminates on the Spot the Top of the Pyramid

Sadly, I see the ever corrupted President of Lebanon Lahoud still on the top. 14th March preach the majority's will, and already dominate the majority of parlaiment, yet they need to reconcile with the 8th of March to mutually agree on plenty of points (rather blame everything on the President remaining in power rather their screw-ups on a national scale). I also know that the new leaders are nothing more than the Proletariat themselves, not the almost the same families who existed during the war, or played a role (even secondary) in the sectarian war of Lebanon.

I have more to say, but I think these six points will do, as I will get more references on the topic.

Yours Truely

Bi-Polar Lebanon and Burying Lebanon in WTO

It is interesting, the clash between 14th March and 8th March is allowing the Current PM Minister Mr. Seniora to get away with integrating Lebanon within the World Trade Organization, while the "lefties" on both sides are just barking on each other who is the real left.
I would expect Democratic Leftist Movement to at least start re-analyzing its alliance with the Future Block, but alas they think that the WTO will bring cash to the country. Some lefties...

Some references on dangers of the WTO, WB, and IMF are as follows:

Globalize This! ~ Various Authors
Globalization and its Terror ~ Terreza Brennan
Global Revolt ~ Amory Starr
Anti-Capitalism ~ Various Authors

Marxist From Lebanon

PS: When I have time I will start tackling those issues as well

Quote of the Day

"On that day the simple men will come.

Those who had no place

in the books and poems of the apolitical intellectuals..." ~Otto Rene Castillo

Taken from here:

Majority Versus Minority

While watching a debate between MP. Samir Frangieh and Dr. Fawaz Trabolsi, I noticed Dr. Trabolsi skinned Frangieh when he said the majority rule, specially Dr. Trabolsi proved to him that it is a tie, just for the fact they are sitting on the round table. Hence, majority is only by name in parlaiment.

Let us look at the parlaiment, we had different alliances, with Hizbullah supporting Jumblatt's PSP, while again Hariri's list got that support in the North. Every vote counts, and in these two regions indeed every vote counted. Hence, are they really majority with the alliance of Aoun and Hizbullah?

Dr. Trabolsi mentioned two glitches in the system, to which he proposed the people elect directly the president; and he was correct that the maronites can't establish to choose a leader who is a leader of the Sect as well President of the Lebanon at the same time. The first glitch involves the Sectarian Electoral system, which used to elect the parlaiment, and the parlaiment elected the President, but the president got the power to dissolve his (sadly we can't add: /her) electors. The glitch was adjusted to lead to another glitch, the President does not have the authority to dissolve the parlaiment, but is not held accountable to anyone.

Personally, of those few political figures, I think few people preserved their leftism... ie Marxism to be exact. Dr. Trabolsi is one of those, while we see Elias Attallah and Khaled Hdaidi competing with each other on who is more leftism, with the difference the first supports the PM's free trade policies, while the other preaches Pan-Arabism and salutes resistence to Israel from an arabic point of view. Hopefully one day Dr. Trabolsi will be a key figure in a real leftist movement.

It is interesting that Dr. Trabolsi also mentioned that the simplest case to begin with is the investigation of the Syrian Workers who got killed in the reactionary wave, since the ball is 100% in the government and simplest to do. It was a good debate, and I have to admit Samir Frangieh is a good debater, but is stuck in the 14th March framework which makes him a sitting duck. If only the debate was longer ...


Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Quote of the day

Necessity is blind until it becomes conscious. Freedom is the consciousness of necessity. ~~ Karl Marx

100% New Lebanese President

Well President Emil Lahoud, who got his mandate extended by the Syrians as a reaction to U.N. Resolution 1559, is enjoying his chair.

Meanwhile else where on the round table, the bi-polar camp is debating on the presidency. Dr. Jaajaa (of LF) and MP S. Harriri claim that the President this time should be 100% elected by Lebanese decision. Today in the morning at LBC, I heard the interviewer asking: "what chance you think there is for a 100% Lebanese President?", and I heard a person reply on the phone 100%. Ironically, all argue it is 100% Lebanese. Technically it is true if all the political parties agree on the next president, yet in theory is it 100% lebanese choice?

Let us reflect at least on the international pressures that are floating via Lebanon, we got the Syrian - Iranian pressures, we also got Palestinian Pressures from within, we got U.S. and French pressures from elsewhere, we got the ever sacred Saudi Arabia imposing pressures, we got... etc

What an agreement this new Lebanese President would be, and indeed 100% Lebanese of course (not).


25th Congress of the Struggle

The 25th Congress of The Struggle opens in Lahore (Friday, 24 March 2006 ), + supplement

it included Lal Khan, Alan Woods, Mansour Ahmad, ...etc plenty more and interesting points discussed (unless an LCP or DLM want to tell me Lebanon First and no time for this) . That what I am talking about we need in Lebanon

Hasta La Victoria Siempre

Viva Internationalism

Well do not worry this is a small post, my friends. I was just remembering a debate with one of the comrades in the CWI (Committee of Workers' International; I do not belong to any organization btw) from the US and just felt so happy that we agreed almost on everything. It always happens, strangely, same were the French delegates who visited Lebanon. I also remember comrades from ISO (International Socialist Organization) as well 2 Trotskystes from Mexico, all agreed. Actually I can sit and stay till morning discussing the amazing agreements. Yet again, it is simple. We are all working not only to help the workers on what is their struggle about, rather we share the same principles, while over here, the Lebanese Communist Party has invented its own left (which is not really leftist) while the Democratic Leftist Party adopts semi Neo-Con ideas.

Long live internationalism and James Cannon was correct to quote Marx that an idea that reflects the truth lives forever.


Ziad Rahbani: Hero of the Majority, despised by Minority

It is known in Lebanon that every leftist has to listen to Ziad Rahbani (well the leftist stereotype, specially plenty want to imitate his sarcastic style of speech). I am one of those who really love Ziad's music and plays, and interestingly you can see people from the Lebanese Forces (Ultra-Maronite Christian Party) to Syrian Social Nationalist Party (Syrian Nationalist Right Wing) listening to Ziad. Sometimes the amazing music of Ziad makes the enemies of today, partners in drinks at night.

No one but adores Ziad, at least used to. The problem is, a small faction despise Ziad Rahbani's music, because every time they hear his music: they remember his speech in People's Voice Radio Station. It makes me wonder, how to the Democratic Leftist Movement members (I guess will call them DLM from now on) feel every time and remember his speech trashing their reactionary leader Elias? (Funny thing, they were not supposed to have a leader my sources tell me). Now, Ziad, who was hailed as a genius in music, and his leftism was preached via his plays, is no longer over iconized. On the contrary, the DLMers, are preaching that Ziad is an idiot in politics, and some went as far as to boycott his music. One of the most quoted leftist figures (sadly rather that Marx or Mendel) is Ziad in the leftist sphere (or even in the social sphere), suddenly got degraded and despised by that small bunch of people. Of course they are going to take it personal, afterall, nothing they lack the leftist knowledge (to me Marxist) and follow the figure head system. They are afterall democratic, at least that what they try to market that.

If Ziad Rahbani reads this, I salute you for your speech. Even though I never liked your impact on youth, you are a genius within the leftist sphere. I do believe your speech annhilated the DLM, please continue on the rest of the parties that belong to 8th/14th March.

"We Oppose the Color Red"

Well, a comrade of mine was on the Democratic Leftist Movement's mailing list, and told me that while they were discussing what logo to choose, one of their ever striving comrades (Mounadil) said: We oppose the color Red on the flag, because we are Leftists and not revolutionaries. (for real?!).

Eventually they chose the color Red (of course) but in a cedar form, as if they never learnt from the mistake of the Lebanese Communist Party that Lebanese + Communist do not click? I remember Zinoviev speaking at the first session that the Boleshevics chose the name Communist Party: Branch Russia to avoid the nationalistic perspective.

As Trostky said: Nationalism is Reactionary Capitalism. Indeed he is correct, for Nationalism in the 20th century rises in the face of the capitalists maximizing profits (specially imperial ones in early 20th century). Barber in "McWorld Versus Jihad" gives an interesting idea about that.


On The Left

Well over here in Lebanon, at a one point, I remember that one time that a member of the Future Youth came to me and told me that we are comrades, and both leftists. So as you see, there is no fixed criteria to label oneself as leftist. Rather, plenty would label themselves as leftists and ascribe themselves to a leftist school (say: Anarchists, Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Green, or simply leftists). The problem is they use the term as leftists, while a huge majority are ultra-nationalists. In my dictionary, Socialism + Ultra-Nationalism would equate to Fascism. Sadly the most exposed to become a fascist is the left-wing activist rather the right-winger. For example, plenty of members of Democratic Leftist Movement (or Harakit Yassar Democraty in arabic) focus on the issue of "Lebanon First", while they hail the prime minister's policies as building a state, PM Seniora who is known to adopt the free market policy (and indirectly representative of the Sunni block) is sometimes hailed as a Comrade. I am not saying that the other blocks are better, on the contrary they are all reactionary or right-wing.

Primarily, we get three major parties that call themselves as leftists.

The first and oldest is the Lebanese Communist Party, I will not dwell on its history of sacrifices as plenty of achievements took place, but I will return to those from time to time. Sadly the party deviated when it endorsed arab nationalism as an alternative and imposed it as a Marxist alternative. We have to keep in mind that the Party has a Stalinist infrastructure, while the party contains few Trotskystes. Sadly, the rigid hierarchy has killed the party. While the generaton of the founders were radical and dared to organize the first demonstration in the face of the French which included more than 7000 activist in 1925, currently it is in its worse reactionary conditions. The ideology has been dropped, and replaced with a figure head system with an Arab Nationalist perspective. To say the truth, ever since the 50s the party went on inventing its own Marxist ideology.

The Organization for Communist Work is in its worse condition as a single man dominated the party through out its history. Only difference that from the 60s till early 80s, the movement gathered the most powerful intellects who currently today are pioneers in academical life. Originally started as a mix of Arab Nationalists with Maoist mix (then later contained greater varieties), they are currently crippled while their intellects have become mostly free lancers. Currently, the Organization has totally withdrawn from the political arena after plenty of reform or rebuilding attempts occured.

The Third and Worse of All, the Democratic Leftist Movement, they were supposed to be an alternative to the Lebanese Communist Party and ended up as a similar party. Its members are ultra-Lebanese nationalists, while they seriously lack any ideological infrastructure. They celebrate that they do not have any ideology (something which makes me wonder on what basis they are leftists). They invite all kinds of leftists and argue that a person does not need books to be leftist. It is the intention that counts (which reminds us of the father of the Liberalist School Immenuel Kant). It makes me wonder if intention that all counts to be leftists, then any of those Saints that sacrificed their lives while fighting poverty have become Comrades. They gained success as Harriri's propaganda machinery supported their candidate to elections when their member, the journalist Samir Qassir (R.I.P), was assasinated, and wanted to establish a monopoly over the martyres.

I will deal with all in plenty of occasions, and plenty of updates (at least for my sake first), then see how this blog would go. Currently, my alternative is that the leftists gather up in a strong unified front with a strong ideological background, and belong to any of the Internationals (ISO, CWI, CMI...etc), because afterall to be a leftist is to be an internationalist and be part of something bigger on an international scale. Intentions are not enough to be labeled as the lazy reactionary & opportunists are justifying their ignorance of not studying the sciences of the left (some of Democratic Left Movement that Marx's books belong in the garbage because they are outdated). The logic is required, I myself belong to the Communist School, sometimes labeled Trotskyst as not be mistaken to Stalinist Soviet Union or Lebanese Communist Party or the ever repulsive Democratic Leftist Movement.

To Be Continued....

First Time Using Blogs

Well, welcome to me, and this is my first time I use such a system, hence it would take a while to write. To say the truth, I will be writing about the left in general and the lebanese left in specific.
I prefer to disclose my name as to keep myself safe (after all even though Lebanon is democractic, it is still Lebanon where each party has its own "angry mobs").