Trotskyist’s “Princess” and the Disciple of the Neoconservatives,
A commentary on the positions of Ms. Louisa Hanoune, Secretary General of the Trotskyist wing in Algeria
Dr. Adel Samara
Occupied Palestine
I followed, perhaps reasonably well, the positions and statements of Ms. Louisa Hanoune, “Secretary – General of the Trotskyist wing in Algeria.” Apart from the speech of Dr. Mughith on the Amazigh question, I noticed from her tone and vocabulary that she is arrogant and considers what she says to be definitive, with nothing more to be said. This arrogance and condescension can be attributed to several unhealthy influences in the upbringing and trajectory of some people.
One of them may be that she has headed a small party for nearly four decades, which has inflated her ego—a condition affecting a category of women who become involved in patriarchal societies and systems, thereby serving patriarchy and capitalism while believing, or claiming, that they are serving women’s rights to empowerment, equality, Liberation and even emancipation. I have called such women “feminine masculinists” in my book Feminization of Woman, third edition, 2025, available through the LULU website and store.
Hanoune’s discourse is political, not intellectual, cultural, theoretical, or historical. This permits the conclusion that her party placed her in the position of secretary-general either because she is supposedly the most intellectually capable—which would be a catastrophe—or for decorative purposes rather than on the basis of competence or gender equality. This is exactly what the Zionized Syrian Kurds did with the, appointing a woman to speak on their behalf not because of competence but for the sake of appearing before the imperial West as though women among them are equal to men, based on their illusion that the West has achieved women’s equality with men, especially women’s liberation, while their bodies are turned into a commodity on television channels—after, of course, they have alienated the spirit from the body. Thus they were exposed as having exploited and joined the counter-revolutionary war against secular Arab Syria in order to destroy the Syrian state, initially relying on German Nazism and then on America, financed by the Gulf calves, only to end up selling what they called “Kurdish rights” and joining the banner of the terrorist Jolani, who handed over large parts of Syria to the Zionist Entity and Turkish colonialism—all of this arranged by the administration of Donald Trump!
It appears that this is what Ms. Hanoune is working toward, especially since Algeria borders the Zionist regime in Morocco, which has opened Moroccan territory wide to the Zionist Entity and aspires to occupy the Sahrawi Republic. Perhaps Hanoune has something to say about this in opposition to Algeria’s position. We would like her to tell us why she did not object to the Zionization of Morocco in revenge for her Amazigh brothers, as she claims, and also to the occupation of Libya, which contains Amazigh and Arabs, like the whole Maghreb.
As for Hanoune’s agitated vocabulary, perhaps it results from the fact that her party suffers from popular poverty—or poverty in popular nourishment. But why? That is for the revolutionaries in Algeria to explain, although the clearest indication is the people’s reluctance to join this “little party,” which is intellectually and politically estranged from them, given that its members are the descendants of the murdered Leon Trotsky.
The Trotskyist Background
Ms. Hanoune heads a wing of communism in Algeria known as Trotskyism, which has called itself, since Leon Trotsky founded it, the “Fourth International”—a dream of his to reject all previous Internationals and lead world communism. He remained at the head of this current until he was killed in Mexico in 1940.
The irony is that he and his followers constantly called Joseph Stalin a “dictator” and accused the Soviets of creating or imposing a cult of personality around Stalin, while Trotsky himself remained secretary-general until he was killed, and his followers have deified him to this day. Before joining the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, he had belonged to the Menshevik/minority wing of the Russian Social Democratic Party before it became the Communist Party.
I will not delve here into these matters, important as they are. But despite Trotsky’s joining Lenin—who nicknamed him “Little Judas”—Trotsky retained non-communist convictions. He rejected the idea of peasants as a revolutionary force, took an extreme position against nationalism under the pretext of “communist purity,” and bombarded the Kronstadt Commune with artillery because the sailors went on strike and held critical positions. He insisted on exporting the revolution directly to Europe and elsewhere regardless of the degree of maturity of the communist parties there and their ability to carry out revolution, particularly in Germany, rather than engaging in adventurism. A revolution, after all, cannot simply be exported; revolutionary forces interact with other revolutionary propositions and forces.
He also took the concept of permanent revolution from Karl Marx and later attributed it to himself or those who came after him as though it were his own creation. By comparison, Imam Khomeini’s slogan of exporting the revolution was one of the major factors behind the Iran-Iraq War, something that makes many Arab intellectuals shudder even at the thought of exporting the revolution as one of the reasons for that war!
Until Stalin eventually grew tired of Trotsky, who fled—or was expelled—from the Soviet Union and settled in Mexico in 1928, where he was killed in 1940. Stalin was, of course, accused of having him killed. But what matters is that in Mexico, some relationship developed between Trotskyism and the authority of the United States. Whether Trotsky himself established it or his followers did, I cannot say with certainty. But time demonstrated this current’s connection with the United States. Anyone who reads about the formation of the neoconservatives will find that most of their leaders were Trotskyists, and they were behind the occupation of Iraq! (See my book Shadows of Judeo-Zionist Trotskyism and Neoconservatism, second edition, 2026, LULU website and store.)
This reminds me of an objection concerning Azmi Bishara’s departure from the Zionist Entity: Did he sneak out on foot, or did the Mossad arrange a smooth exit for him?
Hanoune Remains Faithful to Trotskyism
Hanoune loses her balance throughout much of what she said. Her position is an emotional political one that is not based on a class-based social analysis, as Marxism is. Since she is a Trotskyist, the Trotskyists claim that they alone are Marxists and that they are absolutely without error. They claim a monopoly over the theory, just as Hizb ut-Tahrir claims a monopoly over Islam.
I remember that in 1995 there was a discussion between Gilbert Achcar/Salah Jaber and myself in his home in Paris. The debate lasted twelve continuous hours, to the point that we did not even drink a cup of tea. Throughout the debate he insisted that Trotskyism had never made a mistake! That was the end of any further contact.
Even imperialist Marxism relies, albeit gently, on history in its analysis, because any Marxist who does not rely on history abandons the scientific and philosophical theory and goes to the Torah! Historical analysis depends on analysis, class structure, the dominant mode of production and its articulation with secondary modes, and so forth.
It does not depend on race, purity of blood, eye color, and so on. Hanoune has not come close to Marxism in this regard! Therefore, she has invented an Algerian nation out of her own imagination (see below).
Trotskyism Disguises Zionism Through Language
As I indicated, Trotskyism takes an absolute position against nationalism without taking into consideration that nationalism is an objective expression of a nation discovering or becoming conscious of itself, either to protect itself or to protect its bourgeoisie and its market.
I wonder: Is Hanoune concerned about the inability of the Algerian nation to protect its market after Houari Boumediene and Algeria’s increasing dependency? Or does this not concern her at all?
A nation’s recognition and commitment to its own existence is its right. Therefore, not every nationalism or national consciousness is chauvinistic. Nationalism, during periods of subjugation to colonialism, is a force for revolutionary and liberationist mobilization. Ms. Hanoune could at least return to the Communist Manifesto, with its few pages, because she appears lazy in her reading, or her theoretical comprehension is only half-developed. Otherwise, we would have to explain to her the fundamentals—the Grundrisse or Das Kapital—so she occupies herself with shallow political commentary.
Trotskyism, particularly in the Arab homeland, takes a position against Arab nationalism that ultimately serves Zionism, which correctly understands that its greatest and genuine enemy is Arab nationalism in its liberationist, developmental, and unifying content, which has placed it in opposition and confrontation with imperialism and Zionism.
Thus Zionism and imperialism converge against Arab nationalism, particularly the connection between the liberation of Palestine and the achievement of Arab unity.
In harmony with Zionism and imperialism, and smuggling this harmony under the arm, Hanoune claims that Arab nationalism, indeed the Arab nation, does not exist and that it emerged in response to Zionism!
“… (April 2019): Louisa Hanoune, leader of the Workers’ Party, stated that Algeria ‘does not belong to what is called the Arab nation. What is called the “Arab nation” never existed; rather, it is an ideological concept invented as a reaction to the emergence of the Zionist movement.’”
She repeated this in May 2025 and more recently at a conference of her party in Béjaïa, as I mentioned.
There is no need to describe this statement as worse than racist. Racism despises the other, but it does not deny that the other exists. If the other does not exist, then why utter a denial of its existence in the first place?
Even if the Arabs realized that Hanoune would deny their existence unless they declared themselves a nation, and if some clever Arab like Hanoune declared, one day before Hanoune’s statement, that they were a nation, would that not be their right—just as she creates a separate Amazigh people and an Algerian nation containing several peoples?
Hanoune has exposed her cultural and historical deficiency, despite the fact that one of the most important foundations of Marxism is that it is a philosophy and a science of history.
The Arab nation is one of the nations that have existed continuously from ancient times to the present, like the Chinese, Indian, and Persian nations—ancient nations that have renewed themselves.
As I mentioned in an episode of Uropah that I published in recent days, the other nations that were part of the Arab-Islamic Empire dismantled the Abbasid Empire after its first golden age, and consequently the Arab Empire ceased to exist, but the nation remained. Nations do not die, although they can be exterminated in the age of capitalism, particularly when it is led by neoconservatism, whose leaders are mostly Trotskyists. This is what is happening to part of the Arab people in Gaza.
The Arab nation, or rather Uropah, reorganized itself intellectually and on the ground from the middle of the nineteenth century in order to free itself from Ottoman colonialism. Thus, the renewal of the Arab nation’s self-awareness began before the crystallization of the Zionist movement, which Theodor Herzl announced in 1897.
The project of usurping Palestine was not originally Jewish; Martin Luther proposed it in the mid-sixteenth century as a state that would serve as an instrument of Western colonialism in the Arab homeland. (See Muhammad Walad Ilmi, “The Non-Jewish Origin of Zionism,” Canaan, issue 113, April 2003, pp. 29–60, citing The Arab World Geographer, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2002), pp. 140–152.)
And if Hanoune does not like the idea that the Zionist Entity is an instrument, let her return to Netanyahu’s latest speech in Congress, where he said, in effect, “Support us because we are there protecting your interests,” and they applauded him standing up fifty times—not on their feet!
Accordingly, Hanoune’s embellishment of her words with an attack on Zionism is nothing more than an old prostitute putting makeup on her face after her beauty has abandoned her.
Reactionary Discourse Under a Marxist Cover and Anthropological Confusion
There is a debate between Arabs and Amazigh over the origin of the Amazigh and their language, in the sense that Arabs consider the Amazigh to be Arabs. But I leave this matter to specialists in language, history, and archaeology—not anthropology.
What Hanoune ignores, or does not know, is that the Banu Hilal were not an army that invaded the greater Maghreb. They were a major popular wave that flowed in search of fertile land, and perhaps they were not the first. What I mean is that, although numerous as a tribe, they were one of the waves of Arab migrations from Yemen to the Levant and Iraq and onward to the Maghreb. And here Yemen is preparing itself to liberate the Arabian Peninsula.
The Banu Hilal were not merely an invading army consisting of males who occupied a land and then departed. Accordingly, the number of Arabs in the Maghreb may be equal to, greater than, or less than the number of Amazigh. So what is she going to do with them now, assuming it is even established that she herself is not originally Arab rather than Amazigh? It would be good for her to examine herself.
Among the things she said was:
“… We are an Amazigh people, as are all the peoples of the Maghreb… We share culture and religion with other peoples, but we are a nation in our own right. Algeria is a nation with an identity and history, two official languages, and a people deeply rooted in its land.”
The Amazigh are a people, and there are other peoples whom she did not mention—obviously including the Arabs—and she ignores any others that may exist.
But how did the two or more peoples become one nation? What would she say if every other people—not her Amazigh people—said that it too had developed into a nation in its own right? Is that not historically the process through which any people develop? Would she allow it?
Since Hanoune shares culture and religion with other peoples and has generated from this an “Algerian nation,” what will she say to the other peoples she means, including the Arabs, if they say—and surely they do:
“But we too share culture, religion, history, geography, and aspirations to confront imperialism and Zionism with the Arabs of the Maghreb and the Mashreq.”
Will she slaughter them? Does she have prisons in which to detain tens of millions?
I ask this because she said:
“Algeria is a complete nation, independent in its decisions, sovereign, with a clear identity, whether anyone likes it or not.”
It appears that she has decided, and everyone else must remain silent and accept it!
Frankly, this arrogance and bluntness reminded me of Lenin’s description of one of his opponents at a Bolshevik conference:
“Look at this boy without clothes!”
How did Hanoune decide that Algeria is a nation in its own right? Did she hold a referendum? Did she conduct a genetic and DNA examination?
What will she say to the Arabs in Algeria and throughout the Greater Maghreb if they insist that they are Arab and Algerian? Will she divide Algeria between the two sides? Will she expel anyone who considers himself Arab? Or will she refer the matter to France?
Hanoune’s statement that Algeria has two languages is an undeniable fact. But saying that its people are deeply rooted in their land is shallow populist rhetoric, because all peoples are rooted in their lands; otherwise, they would have left them. This is empty talk demonstrating that the lady has an excess of time and the luxury of affected linguistic pretension.
I repeat here what I mentioned above: what Hanoune stated in 2019 and 2025, and more recently in a speech to her party in Béjaïa:
“… Algeria does not belong to what is called the ‘Arab nation.’”
She does not merely deny Algeria’s Arab identity; she denies the existence of an Arab nation altogether, with a stroke of the pen, just as Golda Meir did against Palestinians decades before her.
Incidentally, I dedicate to Hanoune what the leader Gamal Abdel Nasser said six decades ago:
When one reads a statement by a Marxist, one expects to read something from someone who relies on class analysis. That is not what appeared in Ms. Hanoune’s discourse. Instead, she relied on racial thinking and then mixed and separated Amazigh and Arabs as though she were mixing organic substances and then disposing of them through an inhuman compound.
This manipulation of human beings contains racism and arrogance that inspires disgust! Through such disregard for human beings, she places herself in a position even lower than that of Derrida, who called for “tolerance” between the colonizer and the colonized, the essence of which is the submission of the colonized.
Again, Hanoune’s predicament lies in her claim to Marxism. The glaring exposure that Arab Trotskyists—and Hanoune, among the “Amazigh” of them—cannot conceal is their positions against Libya in favor of NATO, particularly the French enemy, since 2011.
Why did they not avenge their Amazigh brothers there, according to her claim that Algeria shares the whole Maghreb with Amazigh people, including Libyan Amazigh, instead of confronting the Arabs of Algeria?
They also concealed their positions against Syria until it fell into the hands of terrorists! Anyone interested can find this on numerous websites.
In their hatred of Urobah and their service to the Zionist Entity, the Trotskyists celebrated NATO’s, particularly France’s, occupation of the Libyan state and placed it in the hands of their own instruments from the forces of politicized religion opposed to Urobah, thereby contributing to its division, not to mention the victims whose exact number remains uncounted.
The Trotskyists also stood against the Syrian Arab Republic alongside the forces of politicized religion—terrorist forces created by imperialism and Zionism and by the Turkish enemy and financed by Gulf Entities.
The condition of Syria and Libya speaks for itself, particularly since the current authorities are fundamentally opposed to Urobah.
What is amusing and shameful is that many intellectuals, most of them are not Arabs, repeatedly signed statements against Syria after being enticed by the Trotskyists.
At best, this demonstrates the racism, Eurocentrism, and disregard for Arabs and the peripheral countries among these people. They did not attempt to understand the reality and instead signed their names to suspicious statements.
For example, the following statement, dated April 29, 2013, was titled “The Globalized Campaign in Solidarity with the Syrian Revolution”:
“Sign this petition, which supports the struggle of the Syrian people against dictatorship and genocide—prominent left-wing figures, such as Fredric Jameson, Étienne Balibar, Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappé, Talal Asad, Vijay Prashad, Michael Löwy, Gilbert Achcar, Tariq Ali, etc.”
http://pulsemedia.org/2013/04/29/solidarity-with-syria/
I do not know whether these people became entangled in imperialist propaganda or whether, despite their fragile leftism, they failed to rid themselves of racism, Eurocentrism, and the remnants of Orientalism—especially since Syria’s destruction was in fact carried out by a new Orientalist campaign: terrorist Orientalism.
Thus, these people and those with them acquired the disgrace of serving the counter-revolution, particularly the terrorists of politicized religion led by Jolani, who was suddenly transformed from a bloody terrorist into a modern and democratic statesman, endorsed by most official regimes, particularly Western and Arab ones.
Of course, none of these scoundrels bothered to defend their honor after what they called a revolution was exposed, by publishing a brief statement criticizing his betrayal of the Arab people in Syria or saying that they had been misled and lacked knowledge of the truth.
Nevertheless, they were either cowardly or arrogant after reality slapped them across the face and the back of the head—it makes no difference!
How many intellectuals imagine that they never make mistakes and that they are above self-criticism, let alone apology, even when they line up in the camp of brutality and terrorism.
As for the Arab writers who participated in this statement, we will discuss them at a later point.
The Trotskyists in Egypt also stood with the forces of politicized religion, the Muslim Brotherhood (the Raba’a movement), which is remarkable for a movement that considers itself “the saved Marxist sect!”
Regardless of the fact that the current Egyptian regime is neither Arabist nor progressive but takes its orders from the White House, at least it will not cover women in black. And, of course, the regime of Mohamed Morsi was also normalizing, as was the Sisi regime.
Hanoune’s arrogance gains strength from Mr. Mughith describing Amazigh identity as a French creation. I do not believe he meant that the Amazigh people themselves were a French creation; rather, he intended to raise an issue that must be raised against Arab regimes that prohibited the culture and languages of the nationalities and ethnic groups that share the homeland with Arabs.
That is why we use the term “Urobah” for this homeland and its peoples: because the majority and the cultural and civilizational common denominator are Arab, and because it is shorthand for a name that, if it included everyone, would be as long as the Nile River.
Hanoune also strengthened her hollow speech by attacking the official Arab League, whose existence began in opposition to Urobah. For us, this league is a heap of garbage.
As for Dr. Mughith’s interview with Sky News, that position is unacceptable. But how small his mistake is compared with Hanoune’s abolition of the Arab nation!
As an aside, I believe all Arab revolutionaries should reject all Western and Arabized Western satellite channels.
Hanoune rejects Algeria’s Arab identity and insists that Algeria is a nation in its own right. This is an ideologically narrow-minded position par excellence. She did not ask the Algerians about this!
What demonstrates her narrowness of vision are two central matters in the present world:
First: The world is a world of large blocs, whereas she fragments even the individual country. This is the best service to imperialism, allowing the Zionist Entity to become the largest human and geographic “settler regime” in the entire Arab homeland, occupying Palestine at the heart of the Arab homeland, while different nations are forming larger blocs so that they can survive and avoid dependency.
Second: political economy, which moves beyond blood, race, and region toward establishing an advanced developmental structure as a direction toward socialist internationalism.
The question is: since Hanoune is ignorant of these matters of such great importance, has she abandoned Marxism, or did she never wear it in the first place?
The Algerian official media spoke extensively about corruption in the regime during the Bouteflika period. During the purge, Hanoune was arrested while the late General Ahmed Gaïd Salah was in power, among those accused of corruption. Was she included in the amnesty after the strange and fast death of Saleh!
As we mentioned earlier, there is something almost comical that forces us to pity this Trotskyite leader, who concluded her statement with the arrogant, authoritarian, and narcissistic phrase:
“Whether anyone likes it or not.”
This opens the question:
What would happen if this woman seized power? How would she differ from the sword of Bin Salman?
____________
The opinions and views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Kana’an’s Editorial Board.