Isn't it a tad ironic? The Socialists, who have been allying themselves with Muslims, on issues related to accomodating Muslim queerness, are rewriting their own history to show how this makes senese. Never mind, that the Islamic imperialist creed is 180 degrees opposite of the universal, socialist state where no one is on top. It's really quite laughable. Why do this? Because of two things. One, they need more bodies. There aren't enough active Communists and socialists to go around to have a global movement. Two, and this is the most foolish, the old "feed the alligator, and plan to make it into a purse once you have destroyed the conservatives and capitalists." Of course, instead of a purse, you get eaten. But that is the plan that the Socialists have undertaken.
The following is an excerpt from an article "The Bolsheviks and Islam" by Dave Couch at International Socialism. Now Dave here is a real Lenin worshipper and to him, he is the only socialist that matters.
"My aim is to rescue Lenin’s record from the slurs cast on him by the right, and to draw some lessons from the Bolsheviks’ experience. The matter is one of more general significance for a small and battered revolutionary left emerging from isolation after 30 years of downturn. As Alex Callinicos has pointed out, ‘The issue of the hijab is really a symptom of the real problem, which is how to expand our movement to embrace those at the bottom of European society who suffer both economic exploitation and racial oppression and many of whom, for that very reason, strongly attach themselves to their Muslim faith’.4 If we dismiss workers because of the clothes they wear or the beliefs they hold, we condemn ourselves to the sectarian wilderness. It is hardly an exaggeration to say the left has an internationalist duty to stand with Muslims against racism and imperialism."
In other words, Muslims are the new victims for us to champion.
"a decree was one thing, but disestablishing the church in practice was another. In places Orthodox feeling ran high and there were instances in which congregations clashed with Bolsheviks over the control of church property. Popular support for Orthodoxy was significantly undermined, however, in late 1921 when its leader, Patriarch Tikhon, refused to sell off church valuables to raise foreign currency needed to feed famine victims, of whom there were millions. This was the context in which some 45 priests were executed for organising resistance to Trotsky’s campaign to seize wealth from the church. This harsh policy has to be seen in the context of a famine emergency, not as a malicious attack on the church.11"
Touche Couch. All that terror by Trotsky against the church, justified, the Church's fault.
The article rambles on with endless trivia about how Islam and Christianity were dealt with under all the beautiful leaders (Lenin, Stalin, etc) and finally reaches the Conclusion -
Under Lenin and Trotsky the Bolshevik leadership was true to its Marxist understanding that the revolutionary party must be atheist primarily in word, not deed, while the state must be non-religious but not anti-religious. Religious communities were given remarkable freedoms under the revolution, although the religion of the tsarist empire was the most likely to be circumscribed because of its strong links to the former ruling class. Religious believers, including Muslims, who considered themselves revolutionaries were welcomed into the Bolshevik ranks. Non-Communist believers who backed the revolution occupied leading positions in the state apparatus. Some major Muslim organisations joined the Communist parties in their entirety or joined with the Bolsheviks to defend the revolution.
The demands of Muslims for religious freedom were intimately connected with demands for national rights. The Bolsheviks fought alongside Muslims to win those rights from the tsarists and Russian colonialists, but also from the Communist ultra-lefts [Pray, tell me what a Communist ultra-left believes?]. These rights were fought for and won as part of the revolution, not granted as concessions by an anti-religious regime waiting for the moment to pounce on believers. The attacks on these rights originated among the Russian chauvinists of the former regime, many of whom were military men who flooded into the state machine after the civil war and gradually came to see Stalin as the leader of the counter-revolution. However, these elements were assisted by strong ultra-left currents among the Bolsheviks themselves who rejected Lenin’s approach and despised talk of national or religious rights. (These comrades overwhelmingly perished under Stalin.)
The Islamic veil was not an issue for the Bolsheviks under Lenin. The mass assault on the veil was launched in 1927 by Russian chauvinists and Stalinists, a frightening harbinger of the calamity of forced collectivisation a few years later. Forced unveiling was a Stalinist policy that turned Leninism on its head. So in standing up for the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab in Europe today, marching alongside Muslims against the occupations of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, defending the right of Muslims to oppose those occupations by force, and joining with left wing Muslims in united front coalitions such as Respect, socialists are upholding a tradition that goes back to Lenin and Trotsky.
Voila, an alliance is justified and made. It is so absurd, so ridiculous, but there you have it. History revised, alliances made.