Islamic State cannot destroy the real idols of our time!

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Islamic State cannot destroy the real idols of our time!
Printer-friendly version

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Islamic State cannot destroy the real idols of our time!. The discussion was initiated by baboon.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

An interesting and

An interesting and informative text which demonstrates the usefulness of this new "facility" on the website.


There's a good explanation of idolaltry and its relationship to alienation, There's a good explanation too of the emergence of monotheist religions and their fundamental nature of the revolt of the oppressed. It's interesting what Jaycee says about the way that Islam gave a coherence to unification over tribal divisions and laid the basis for nations. In Europe also the break of the barbarians with their tribal organisations and society paved the way for their own unifications making them nation-builders par excellence. Christianity was also a facilitator here but kept the old prehistoric belief system's symbolism of the barbarians to the fore for a long period. Also interesting is the question of Judaism coming from a general revolt of the oppressed rather than from slavery, as expressed in the story of Moses. There's been some doubt about the depth of slavery in ancient Egypt for some time and latest discoveries and art works are showing a deeper level to Egyptian citizenship.


I agree with the sense that Isis is a capitalist Caliphate, real back to the roots extortion and robbery at a decomposed and base level. It's destruction of ancient works of art and architecture is entirely in keeping with the atrocities of imperialism not least the wholesale destruction of many such artefacts during the war in ex-Yugoslavia in the 1990's (as well as the massacres and mass rapes that went along with it). "God fearing" fundamentalists are currently buring down churches in the southern US.


Also agree that the description of those who go to join as insane and stupid is superficial at best. The grooming aspect is certainly there from Isis, as is the attraction of boys with guns and girls with dashing husbands. Unemployment is also a major factor but there's more and Isis does put forward a vision, even a perverted one, of an identity and a future.

cheers for the feedback

cheers for the feedback Baboon. 

The connection with the 'Barbarians' in Europe and their own adoption of Christianity and the establishing of Feudalism is an important point I think.There is certainly alot of similarity but also the differences between the two are also intereting, the way for example that Islam provided a 'organic' ideology of this movement as compared to the adoption of Christianity as a unifying movement for example. How this relates to the differences in the later civilizations which were establihed is interesting.

I'm considering doing a follow up to this rticle looking in more detail into the degeneration of Islam. In particular I've come to the slightly controversial conclusion that the writing down of the Quran was connected(to wht extent is not clear) to a counter revolution aginst the original Islamic movement.

Nice job Jaycee. Have you

Nice job Jaycee. Have you given any thought to the significance that historically many revolts of the oppressed have had "backward looking" features (re-establishment of tribal society)? How does that relate to the continuing ability of various bourgeois ideologies to suck in elements of the proletariat today? Isn't part of the reason why ISIS attracts some young disaffected youth from the West that it offers a kind of utopian redemption and transcendence, while at the same time allowing them to express and act out some of their most violent and anti-social impulses (wherever they come from)? Something to the effect of "the road to paradise is paved with blood and gore, but it is the road to paradise nonetheless, so go get your fill." Of course, this is a kind of criticism that has been leveled at Marxists before too--the seed of Stalinist crimes is present in the very redemptive and utopian instincts of Marxism from the beginning, which subordinates everything in the here and now to the goal of obtaining the revolutionary beyond. This would raise the question of ethics and the relationship of means and ends in the struggle for a better world--something that is fraught with difficult problems.

Worth pursuing

I think that Jaycee's idea about the "counter-revolutionary" nature of the Koran is worth pursuing, not least from the fact that the victors in war write history and one would think that it's the victorious religious elites that then construct their dogmas. Not forgetting that all that you're liable to read in the bible, it ain't necessarity so.

The backward looking nature

The backward looking nature of previous movements of the oppressed has a few interesting aspects and causes; first I think it is safe to say that in general all pre-capitalist societies in general have a backward looking orientation in that the past in generally seen as being superior to the present. It is capitalism with its constant 'growth' that reverse this perspective (this has become a real ideology of the present times- especially the disdain for the past which seems to get more and more entrenched). Also however I think there is an aspect of a collective memory of primitive communism in this tendency.

However Zoroastrianism and Judaism are among the first 'forward looking' worldviews that had the idea that history was progressing towards a future that would be superior to the present and the past. Why Zoroastrianism developed this view is difficult to say- I would guess that it was a movement of the oppressed originally too but i don't know enough to be sure- as a side/ slightly relevent pointthe first ever recorded communist rebellion in history was led by a zoroastrian priest called Mazdak.

The link between Marxism and apocalypticism is complex- it is often used as a criticism of Marxism to say that we are nothing but modern day religious fanatics etc. We should affirm our continuity with the best moments of these ideas while obviously being careful to avoid its worst excesses and negative 'psychological' aspects where possible. 

Thanks webmaster. 


From the New York Times

From the New York Times about Pope Francis in Paraguay. 

ASUNCION, Paraguay-His speeches can 
blend biblical fury with apocalyptic 

doom. Pope Francis does not just criticize 
the excesses of global capitalism. He 

compares them to the"dung of the devil, 
He does not simply argue that systemic 
"greed for money"is a bad thing. He calls 
it a"subtle dictatorship that condemns 
and enslaves men and women." 


He doesn't call for its revolutionary removal of course. But maybe that's not surprising

ah i dunno about the pope. as

ah i dunno about the pope.

as God's representative he could do or say pretty much anything.

i imagine if i were pope i would, i like to think, be a little "more". it could be strategic, but then what isn't - when i think of master strategists i think of bordgia tbh. and he was pretty explicit in "things".

same with the icc, not afraid of a "fight" are they lol. my dad used to say that about people that join the army; god bless his soul etc etc.


linking this rambling post to the art / poetry thread, i wonder not why to believe that the artist is now the party, but what it matters. modern art had i think no message, not one that was constructed out of its materials anyway - more i suppose their social reality. so if only because i like the humour of turning things upside down, perhaps the menaing of the "communist party" is composed of its materials - its past, the "left".

i know the icc doesn't claim some lineage with the past left per se, at least doesn't assume it is the only group that can do so. i think the question - the one that naturally rises at this juncture in my thinking, is how can individuals respond to social reality, informed by the party, without regressing into something horrible. i suppose that the obligation is, given that struggle seems so distant even if it doesn't feel that way, to think questions like this one through to its logical conclusion. this is often made deeply problematic by the nature of conversation today.

so in conclusion i suppose that to think this particular question through to its conclusion is to affirm that the role of the communist party today is to not give one inch to barbarism as an ideology.

Not sure i agreed with all

Not sure i agreed with all that but some good points, liked the bit about how the thing with ISIS is that its not really radical at all. 

which parts did you not agree

which parts did you not agree with commiegal?