Film about the Muslim anti-gangster group Pagad (People Against Gangsterism and Drugs) in Western Cape, South Africa.

Pagad – The Gangster’s Enemy (on YouTube)

From Pagad (online):

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Mindful of our duty to the Creator as a Community, and in conformity with:

“You are the best of people evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right,

forbidding what is wrong and believing in the Creator…”

~ Al Quran: Surah 3 Verse 110

Therefore, all those persons who surrender themselves to the will of God are welded into a Community and the Society comes into being. Thus, this is an ideological Society; a Society radically different from those, which arise from accidents or races, colour or country. This Society is the result of a deliberate choice, commitment, effort and sacrifice.

Accordingly, it is the outcome of a contract, which takes place between human beings and their Creator.  Those who enter into this contract undertake to recognise and accept God as their Sovereign; His Guidance as Supreme; and His Injunctions as absolute Law. They further undertake to accept, without question, reservation or doubt, His classification of good and bad, right and wrong, the permissible and the prohibited.

In recognition and acceptance hereof, we hereby pledge to honour our Contract with Our Creator…

Gangsterism and Drugs are menaces and should be eradicated!

We all CAN & MUST do something about it!

Let’s organise ourselves and protect our children from the dangers they face every day!

Join other neighbours and establish a PAGAD Branch in your area.

Background Information (from www.sahistory.org):

People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD) came into being in 1996 when communities on the Cape Flats, Cape Town decided to form an anti-crime organisation. The aim was to fight the drugs and violence plaguing their area. PAGAD began as a multi-religious organisation, but because its dominant membership was of Muslim people, it became an Islamic front. Later, PAGAD developed anti-government and Western sentiments, as

the organisation believes that the South African government poses a threat to Islamic values. It also aims to create better political representation for South African Muslims.

Due to its controversial vigilante tactics, the organisation has several front names like Muslims Against Global Oppression (MAGO) and Muslims Against Illegitimate Leaders (MAIL) under which it launches anti-

Western campaigns. PAGAD’s military wing is called G-Force, for Gun Force, and functions as small groups or cells. It is believed that G-Force has been responsible for acts of sabotage and violence akin to terrorism.

PAGAD has been implicated in episodes of urban terrorism in Cape Town since 1998, especially 9 different explosions in 2000. The groups attacks synagogues, gay nightclubs, moderate Muslims, tourist attractions and restaurants with Western associations, like the Planet Hollywood bombing in Cape Town on 25 August 1998. PAGAD denied any involvement in the event after subsequent raids on several members’ homes within 20 minutes of the explosion.

The organisation first came into the spotlight in 1996 when members shot and set alight Rashad Staggie, a notorious Cape Flats drug dealer. PAGAD felt that the police were not doing enough to stop drug related crimes in their communities and decided to take matters into their own hands.

Shots were fired at a group of Muslim men who converged on the Staggie residence and some of the vigilantes were wounded. Staggie tried to escape by car, but was prevented from doing so. He was shot and someone threw a firebomb at him and he burst into flames. Police officers doused the fire, but several masked men fired further shots and finally killed Staggie in a widely televised drama. Benny Gool, a photographer at the scene, captured the killing on film and had to go into hiding for fear of attacks from PAGAD. He was also not prepared to turn his footage over to the police. Rashied Staggie, the brother of the executed drug dealer, fled to a safer location, but swore revenge at his brother’s funeral.

It is estimated that PAGAD has several hundred members with G-Force probably consisting of less than 50 people. There are allegations that it has relationships with Middle Eastern fundamentalist groups, as well as with Osama bin Laden.

In 1998 the South African Police launched Operation Saladin, a campaign to curb the rampant vigilantism PAGAD was practicing. Two policemen laid charges of intimidation after they allegedly received death threats as a result of the operation.

Benson Chitupa — Chegutu.
The Herald (Zimbabwe)

It feels bad that the MDC today still preaches that the sanctions do not exist in Zimbabwe. It makes sad reading.

An undisputable fact is that, in general, black people are the indigenous people of Zimbabwe.

Let me borrow from an inspiring speech I have read elsewhere. Today I feel good to be a Zimbabwean led by people who would not tolerate oppression.

I owe the success of this country to the hills and valleys, the mountains, the rivers, the deserts, the trees, the flowers and the ever-changing seasons that define the face of our native land.

I am the grandchild of the warrior men and women that President Mugabe led, the patriots that Joshua Nkomo took to the battle and the soldiers that Josiah Tongogara taught never to dishonour the cause of freedom. I have learnt that the land reform process needed no patience.

Zanu-PF under the leadership of President Mugabe has done it all — it has proved to all Africans that Africa is capable of determining its own destiny.

Now that we are in some kind of a coalition government, Zanu-PF must be very careful to keep the spirit of the revolution alive because we know that the struggle for democracy did not start in 2000 as the MDC wants the nation to believe. The nation cannot be fooled.

President Mugabe is a land reformist, an anti-imperialist and a pan-Africanist of the highest order, leaving the international donors and MDC impaled on the horns of a dilemma.

History and events happening are testimony to this.

Zanu-PF has a proud history which we cannot afford to forget and as a Zimbabwean this is an achievement which I am proud of, proud without reservation and proud without any feeling of conceit.

Our sense of elevation at this moment also derives from the fact that this magnificent product of land reclamation is the unique creation of Zimbabwean hands and Zimbabwean minds.

But it also contributed to the loss of our mothers and fathers who today remain silent in their tombs. This should be a constant reminder to us.

Long live total sovereignty and long live President Mugabe.

Brochure “Revolution and youth”, published by Communist University of Ya. M. Sverdlov, 1924
By Aron Borisovich Zalkind

1) There should not be an unnecesarily early development of sexual activity in the proletarian environment

2) It is necessary to abstain from sexual activity before marriage; marriage is to be had only when social and biological maturity is reached (20-25 y.o.)

3) Sexual connection is only a final stage of deep multi-faceted sympathy and attachment to the object of sexual love

4) Sexual intercourse must only be a final link in the chain of deep and complicated issues which connect the lovers during the current moment

5) Sexual intercourse must not repeat often

6) Do not change the sexual object often. Less sexual diversity

7) Love must be monogamous, monandric (one wife, one husband)

8 ) With each sexual intercourse, it is necessary to always remember of possible birth of a child — basically remember about offspring

9) Sexual selection must be built on the line of social [class] revolutionary proletarian expediency. No flirting, courting, coquetry and other elements of sexual conquest must be a part of intersexual relationships

10) There must not be jealousy

11) There must not be sexual perversions

12) Society [class], in the interests of revolutionary expediency, has a right to intervene with the sexual life of its members: the sexual should always obey the social [class], never be a problem for the latter, serve it in all ways.

The Marxist Internet Archive (MIA) has recently launched a new section to its website, entitled “Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism.”

Though not comprehensive, it does provide a decent collection of works documenting the growth of the Anti-Revisionist movement, its history, as well as a few primary texts. Still a work in progress, but definitely a worthwhile resource.

You can visit the “Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism” by clicking on the link above. The site has also been linked in our “Marxist-Leninist Resources” section (left-hand column).

The line of thinking that suggests Marxist-Leninists should only support those governments, organizations or Parties that lead directly to a socialist (or even more absurdly, communist) society is not only impractical, but categorically unMarxist. This is base opportunism in its most vile form, perhaps just as bad as those right-opportunist “communists” who endorse the NATO-led occupation of Afghanistan or the US-led occupation of Iraq. This same revisionist line, when applied to the question of Iran, manifests itself in support for the so-called “velvet revolutionaries” and other opportunist (or outright treasonous) sects within the Iranian bourgeoisie, who (either directly or indirectly) become the unwitting tools of US-Western imperialism inside the Islamic Republic.

Anybody vaguely familiar with Marxism-Leninism knows that our position on these questions should be determined by close, thoughtful scientific analysis, and not as opportunities to simply regurgitate tired slogans or maxims. In fact, maxims are antithetical to Marxism. Denouncing the Islamic Revolutionary government in Iran is in no way, shape or form different from endorsing US imperialism. To say that you support peaceful regime change inside Iran, but oppose US imperialism, is a contradiction. The United States, through its foreign intelligence services, in the past have shown absolutely no qualms when it comes to interfering in the internal affairs of a country it deems “hostile.” 

Similarly, the expression of perceived “discontent” by these riotous protesters in Iran’s capital are fomented in part by a desire for less stringent government regulations on the economy (a desire for economic liberalization) and in part fomented by British and US intelligence services (Iranian judiciary organs have already exposed the degree to which British and French intelligence serves have attempted to undermine the Islamic Republic following the June 12 Presidential election). Therefore, supporting this movement is disadvantageous to the Iranian proletariat, who at the current time, is bound to the Iranian bourgeoisie in a defensive struggle against imperialism.

Likewise, there is nothing more obnoxious than when self-described Marxists mistakenly take the view that only those organizations or Parties that fight directly for socialism should be supported. This is idealist and fundamentally in contrast to Marxist dialectical materialism. Stalin argued this point perfectly in Foundations of Leninism, where he argued that the anti-imperialist struggle of the Emirate of Afghanistan versus British imperialism was progressive, in that it both undermined contemporary British imperialism and furthered the cause of proletarian revolution. It should also be known that Stalin argued that the national struggle of the people of Afghanistan should be supported by workers, independent of any perceivedreactionary tendencies within the Emirate’s ideological position. This is how a Marxist analyzes geo-political events.

It’s on this same token that genuine Marxist-Leninists support the Islamic Revolutionary government in Iran, the Taliban mujahideen resistance forces in occupied Afghanistan, Islamic resistance to US interference in Pakistan’s Swat Valley, national resistance forces in occupied Iraq and anywhere else where national resistance against an imperialist aggressor takes form.

A reader sent us a question asking about whether or not the concept of Socialism in One Country was consistent with the principles of Marxism-Leninism:

Didn’t Lenin advocate that socialism can only be achieved through internationalist revolution? Wasn’t Trotsky’s permanent revolution more in line with true, classical Leninism?

Trotskyite falsifiers have often contended that Leon Trotsky’s so-called theory of “permanent revolution,” was wholly consistent with Lenin’s position on whether or not socialism could be constructed in one country. This myth has permeated through Trotskyite circles for decades, despite being categorically proven false long ago.

If we go straight to the works of Lenin himself, we can see that indeed, the very notion of the possibility of socialism in one countries is 100 per cent consistent with the ideas expressed by Marx, Engels and Lenin.

“…Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world.” (On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, 1915, V.I. Lenin).

Lenin further demonstrated the possibility of establishing socialism in one country during  a1918 speech before the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet on May 14, where he said:

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.” (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.).

Another historical obfuscation committed far too regularly by the Trotskyites, is the claim that Stalin falsely believed that the “final victory” of socialism could be attained within the Soviet Union, without proletarian revolution abroad. Stalin himself smashed this revisionist lie in his own words, when clarifying the problems involved in this particular question:

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

To the first problem, Stalin correctly noted that the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the socialization of the means of production (and the corresponding relations to production within the Soviet Union), demonstrated the possibility of the victory of socialist construction in one country.

“We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.”

By final victory, Stalin clarified that the Great October Bolshevik Revolution would require international revolution as a full guarantee against capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union:

“…the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries and still more, the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration; a necessary condition for the final victory of socialism.” (On the Final Victory of Socialism, 1938, J.V. Stalin)

FMP also created a video that addresses this question (see below):