The Iraq war’s sleeping giant
Over recent weeks, stories have begun to filter into the public press in the west that the Turkish government and army are increasingly discontented over the seeming haven given to PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) fighters in Northern Iraq. Predictably it’s taken a while, as both the mainstream media and the left wing press in the UK have a tendency to “skip” Turkey on their way to Palestine, Iran and Iraq when covering the area. Which is all the more bizarre seeing as at more than one ethnic and cultural group straddles several of those countries at the same time, but that’s an issue for another post.
Many of you will know that in the 1980s and 1990s the PKK and the Turkish army fought a running civil war in the south-eastern region of Turkey, whose majority population is Kurdish, and whose regional centre is the city of Diyarbakir. At the same time, Kurds were less than second-class citizens in law, their language being barred from most media, and their nationality being generally referred to as “Mountain Turk”. Most of the left in the west (left and centre-left parties in Turkey were more divided) sided with the PKK as a national liberation movement, in spite of some queasiness over their tactics which included attacks on civilian targets. Nevertheless, given the organisation’s at least formally Marxist politics, and the appalling mistreatment by the Turkish government of those who it stood to defend, it is easy to see why the majority of the left took, and still takes, this stance.
However by the late 1990s the Turkish Army had gained the upper hand and the PKK’s influence was radically reduced. The symbolic capture of iconic PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan in 1999 appeared to mark the beginning of the organisation’s end. Furthermore, the election in 2002 of the nominally Islamist AK party led by current Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan led to an unprecedented liberalisation of the laws on language in broadcasts and schools, and to a stream of of public investment in south east Turkey being opened up. This in turn seemed to bleed support further from the PKK.
The PKK went through a couple of transitions, as KADEK (Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress) and Kongra-Gel (Kurdistan People’s Congress) in the early 2000s, in an effort to reverse its decline. In 2004 however it reversed its unilateral ceasefire that had been imposed since Ocalan’s capture, and began operations within Turkey once again. These operations have once again included attacks on civilian targets, which have produced outcry in the mainstream Turkish press, but not a huge amount of comment among the western left. Large numbers of PKK fighters were, and are, based in Northern Iraq where their former rivals in the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, hold sway.
All this brings us up to date. Obviously the Iraq War has in many ways entrenched the positions of KDP leader Massoud Barzani and (even more so) PUK leader Jalal Talabani in their political fiefdoms. Further, it has provided the PKK with an opportunity to regroup militarily, subject to their not-always-easy dealings with Barzani, whose forces control most of the Turkish border area. It has also infuriated generals and politicians in Ankara, who in addition to seeing a revived PKK, are also having to resist ultra-nationalist calls for outright military intervention to safeguard the Turkoman poplulation in Kirkuk. The AK government which as well as having to deal with nationalist tide currently enveloping Turkey is also the main electoral rival of Kurdish nationalist parties in the East of Turkey, is under severe pressure to act. Only days ago, Turkey’s special envoy on the PKK, General Edip Baser said:
“It’s hard to understand why we should not use one of our international rights, as this terrorist organization is still active and coming into my country, and acting in my country, killing people and then going back to northern Iraq… Why I shouldn’t go after them?” [1]
This came along with similar sabre rattling from Turkish army chief General Yasar Buyukanit and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, amongst others. And let’s face it, it’s quite hard to argue for restraint in Northern Iraq (as western governments have been doing) on Turkey’s part whilst you’re busy razing the rest of the country to the ground. Further it’s hard to talk about the democratic rights of those invaded when the country doing the invading is an electoral democracy claiming to be protecting the rights of an endangered ethnic minority and eradicating terrorism. Again, sound familiar?
Furthermore, Barzani, part of a Kurdish coalition government in Northern Iraq that wants Kirkuk as its capital, appears to be alert to the mood in Turkey. In response, he has threatened to step completely off the fence in the PKK’s war against the Turkish government:
“Turkey is not allowed to intervene in the Kirkuk issue and if it does, we will interfere in Diyarbakır’s issues and other cities in Turkey” [2]
This carries with it the veiled threat of a call to arms for the majority of people in Turkey’s Kurdish region, for whom Barzani’s father in particular is a folk hero figure. It also marks a potential alliance between the PKK and KDP, whose mutual antipathy has contributed a great deal in the past to Turkey’s ability to manage the region.
So, what happens next? Obviously to anyone such as myself who is basically sympathetic to the Kurdish cause, there is an emotional impulse to hope that the floodgates are lifted, there’s a heroic struggle, and a unified Kurdish national liberation movement sweeps to power across the region on a cry of “Biji Kurdistan!” and the smoke from a peshmerga’s Kalashnikov.
The reality is it won’t work like that. Turkish military intervention in Northern Iraq would massively strengthen the hands of the ultra-nationalist right in Turkey, who are already riding high amid political and legal moves to strangle liberal voices in that country. Pan-Turk sentiment which always bubbles just beneath the surface in parts of Anatolia would have an opportunity to pour out in solidarity with the (genuine) plight of the Turkomans. Turkey is a regional superpower with over 1 million men under arms and modern equipment. Such civil rights as Turkish Kurds have gained in recent years would be washed away under a tide of brutal military repression. The consequences for the Iraqi Kurds of an outright military confrontation with Turkey would be apocalyptic. And the west would be powerless to stop a NATO ally from doing what, after all, is only the same thing that it is doing in the rest of the country.
It is only to be hoped that some kind of solution can be found - and it is far from clear that the PKK is the same organisation that it was in Apo’s day, in order to be able to find the tactical nous to exercise such restraint. Barzani is a master political tactician (whatever one may think of the tribal and conservative KDP’s actual politics), but whether he could put the lid back on Pandora’s box were he to open it with a call for a rising in Diyarbakir, is very much in doubt. Thus far outside interventions in the dispute have been largely limited to toothless criticisms from the Baghdad government and US officials.
And what are we on the left to say about it? I think that we should speak clearly and loudly against Turkish military intervention in Northern Iraq. We also obviously support the Kurdish right to self-determination, which is clearly the wish of a large majority in Northern Iraq and probably a majority of Turkish Kurds as well. Finally, we stand in defence of the rights of the Turkoman minority in Iraq to live free from harrassment and to enjoy the same democratic rights as Kurdish citizens in the Kirkuk region.
I certainly support an independent Kurdish state - it is one of the greatest historical injustices in that region that one of the oldest nations in the world does not control its own borders, and one that is to the abject shame of western imperialists past and present. But for all that, I don’t think that the left should endorse either the PKK’s actions or Barzani’s tactics right now - they strike me as foolhardy and likely to lead to the destruction of liberationist political forces in Kurdistan, which would lead to that nation’s realisation being set back for decades. Of course every person wants to be his own king, but not of a devastated and desolate realm.
Jules said,
April 22, 2007 at 11:18 am
Great post VP.
Is this your specialist area?
voltaires_priest said,
April 22, 2007 at 11:52 am
I suppose so - well, Anatolia mainly, Turkic central Asia secondarily.
Thanks for the compliment too.
chris y said,
April 22, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Last two paras get it exactly right. Evidently, with Turkey being the main anchor for NATO (read US interests) in the region, any Turkish intervention would be geeted with a great deal of hand wringing and fuck all else on the part of the imperialist powers. Provoking Ankara at this time seems insane to me. Is there any rational basis on which it should seem otherwise to the KDP?
voltaires_priest said,
April 22, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I suppose it’s feasible that Barzani’s simply miscalculated his and his party’s (not to mention his region’s material assets’
value to the western forces in the region. He’s a competent regional baron, but not someone with Talabani’s eye for and understanding of the world stage, from what I can gather. He’s also still rather trading off his legendary father’s reflected glory in terms of the KDP’s political kudos in region, as well as iron clan loyalties. Of course, whilst these are all of enormous import in his immediate surrounds (and were also vital in the power games and loyalty webs that made up much of regional politics in Baathist Iraq), the Turks basically don’t care about any of that stuff, because they don’t have to. Hence perhaps his experience in previous situations has taught him to think that he’s more of a big wheel that he actually is.
Squirrel Vanguard said,
April 22, 2007 at 12:33 pm
While I certainly support an independent Kurdish state in principle, I am a bit troubled as to its potential nature.
Under the circumstances, an independent Kurdistan can very well become a new Israel, namely, a new gendarme of American interests in the region. The situation is certainly very complicated though. We’ll have to stand by and see.
johng said,
April 22, 2007 at 12:47 pm
‘One of the oldest nations in the region’.
This is a bit of a strange idea really.
voltaires_priest said,
April 22, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Errr no it isn’t.
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 22, 2007 at 2:35 pm
JohnG,
Please do give us the benefit of your extensive knowledge of the region
also, do you support the establishment of a Kurdistan?
gasdocpol said,
April 22, 2007 at 2:36 pm
This is yet another instance where the UN could solve problems in the Mideast. Those who discount the ability to this are creating a self-fullfilling prophesy.
Turkey wants to become part of the European Economic Community. The Kurds want to have their own country. Turkey has the very legitimate concern that the presence of a Kurdish state on their border will encourage rebellian by their own Kurds.
If the Kurds wants international supportfor their own independant state, international guarantees must be given to Turkey that Kurdistan will play nice.
If Canada and the USA who have a similar languge and culture can live side by side, why can’t the Kurds of Turkey do that with the Kurds of Kurdistan?
voltairespriest said,
April 22, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I think it has more to with whether Turkish Kurds consider themselves a part of Turkey or of Kurdistan.
gasdocpol said,
April 22, 2007 at 3:02 pm
That is where the UN can come in.
There must be an understanding by the Kurds of Iraq that if they want international support ofor their independance, they must respect the Turkish border.
If the Turkish government wants to become part of theEuropean Economic community and retain the Kurdish part of turkey, they need to make the Turkish Kurds comfortable staying in Turkey.
voltaires_priest said,
April 22, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Sure, but why don’t you think the Turkish Kurds should be able to choose whether they form a part of Turkey or of Kurdistan?
gasdocpol said,
April 22, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Yes i think that the Turkish Kurds SHOULD be able to make that choice but I do not think that Turkey would agree to that and international law would certainly forbid that being imposed on Turkey.
Maybe it would make some sense for Iran, Syria and Turkey to all relinquish their Kurdish parts to form one big Kurdistan. BUT THAT AIN’T GOING TO HAPPEN AND WE SHOULD NOT EVEN THINK OF IT. IT WOULD CAUSE EVEN MORE TROUBLE IN THE MIDEAST.
AN INDEPENDANT KURDISTAN CARVED OUT OF IRAQ IS A REALIZEABLE AND DESIREABLE GOAL..
IT IS A SHORT STEP FROM THE SUBLIME TO THE RIDICULOUS.. Let’s not push our luck!
voltairespriest said,
April 22, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Right now, I more or less agree (albeit rather less emphatically) - independence for Turkish Kurdistan isn’t on the cards right now. But please don’t mistake what I wrote - my argument is one of tactics not principle. If the balance of forces were different, and I was certain that there was a majority for Kurdish independence in SE Turkey, my stance would be a far less cautious one than it is at present.
Jonathan Genocide said,
April 22, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I sincerely believe that the Kurds have no claim to nationhood as Alex Callinicos has declared Iraqi Kurds to be tools of Imperialism.
I therefor support the Islamist groups who kill them randomly.
gasdocpol said,
April 22, 2007 at 4:56 pm
If the Kurds want to have their own country whose borders are respected by other counties, it would behoove them to respect other countries’ borders.
voltaires_priest said,
April 23, 2007 at 6:18 am
Indeed, although what’s constituted by “other countries’ borders” in that region, is disputable. For instance, if a majority in the Diyarbakir region want to be part of Kurdistan, are they then “disrespecting Turkey’s borders” by saying so? It seems to me that they have that right.
Igor Belanov said,
April 23, 2007 at 7:51 am
I agree with Gasdocpol, we should defend the linguistic and civil rights of Kurds as much as possible, but a Kurdish irredentist movement in the Middle East would be a disaster. I think the problem is the ‘right’ to self-determination which only helps to encourage nationalism (from more than one side) and does next to nothing to improve the prospects for socialism.
voltaires_priest said,
April 24, 2007 at 6:39 am
…which is easy to say when you haven’t been deprived of a state.
Igor Belanov said,
April 24, 2007 at 7:49 am
That’s my whole point. I don’t believe that national groups have the ‘right’ to a state. Especially when it’s likely to unleash bloodshed on a regional scale.
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 24, 2007 at 11:20 am
Igor wrote:
I don’t believe that national groups have the ‘right’ to a state. Especially when it’s likely to unleash bloodshed on a regional scale.
three points:
isn’t it a bit presumptive for people living in nationstates to tell others that they cannot have a state of their own, even if there are long historical and valid reasons for having one, and that without a state those people would largely be defenceless?
the creation of nation states seems to be part of modern political development, as without them people feel they have no means of representing themselves against other bullying nation states, etc
it is not a foregone conclusion that the creation of a Kurdish state would naturally unleash bloodshed,this is in the hands of Turkey and Iran, and if they use the pretext of the creation of a Kurdish state for a violent intervention then that is their political and military choice, not the Kurds, who would naturally prefer a peaceful settlement with neighbouring nations
Igor Belanov said,
April 24, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I don’t feel the need to ‘belong’ to a nation-state, indeed in the UK we live in a multinational state, something that many people forget (though not the Welsh or the Scots!).
Modernity, you contradict yourself by stating that there are long historical reasons why some people should have a state, but then you say ‘the creation of nation states seems to be part of modern political development’. I’d agree with that, it is a recent phenomenon, but not an inevitable one, Kurds have historically lived within a wide range of different political structures and I don’t see why they ‘need’ a nation-state if their civil rights and national identity are respected. I’m perfectly happy that they currently possess a ‘de-facto’ state, but I think people are entitled to be a bit worried if they start to demand the ‘right’ to unify all Kurdish peoples, as some people on this thread seem to be advocating.
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 24, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Igor Belanov,
several points:
whether or not you are feel that we “belong” to a nationstate is not the issue, we are not stateless and whatever the disadvantages of a nation state that condition does not compare with that of stateless refugees
so I think it is a bit arrogant of us to tell stateless refugees that they cannot have a state (be that Kurdistan or Palestine)
whether or not people should put trust in a nation state is another issue, but until people actually have a state I don’t think that necessarily they can advance beyond it
I don’t think that there is any contradiction between a group of people wishing a nationstate and much of the activity happening in the 19th century, it happened, history is messy, history is contradictory, that’s the nature of human development, it is not some mathematical equation
in terms of the Kurds, please tell us where their national identity is recognised [outside of Iraqi Kurdistan, which is their own creation]and their rights guaranteed? Turkey? Iran?
that surely is the issue? their national rights are not respected or is their culture
and where does self-determination come into this whole scheme?
or is it all geopolitics?
gasdocpol said,
April 24, 2007 at 5:01 pm
The Kurds want to be an independant state and they have proved that they are capable of self-government. Partitioning Iraq may be a way of stopping sectarian violence in Iraq. These are reasons are reasons for creation of a Kurdistan.
The presence of an independant kurdish state on Turkey’s Southern border gives Turkey the very real concern that there could be a rebellion on the part of the turkish Kurds.
Turkey is going to need some very solid guarantees from Kurdistan and the world community for this to work.
Jules said,
April 24, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Igor have you read Hal Draper’s work on Marxism and national liberation? It’s well worth a read if you haven’t:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1969/abc/index.htm
Igor Belanov said,
April 25, 2007 at 7:37 am
I don’t really fancy taking a lecture on national liberation from someone whose views may well differ radically from my own. The are other strands within Marxism that take a less favourable view of nationalism, Luxemburg for example, and I tend to share that viewpoint.
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 10:48 am
Yes it is Voltaire. What do you mean by ‘nation’?
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 11:12 am
Nationalism today is usually understood in relationship to the formation of a modern nation state (the subject under discussion). This is a radically novel idea in human history, even more so in the region under discussion then in Europe. Therefore when people invoke a national past as part of a project to establish a modern nation-state they usually refer to matters of culture, language, literature and other such things which pre-dated the idea of modern nationalism (and in my view there is no neccessary connection between these things). In a region like the Middle East, whilst the modern nation state is a more novel idea then it is in Europe, the development of cultures, languages, literatures and what might broadly be described as patterns of civilisational distinctiveness, actually pre-date similar things in Europe. This is because, whilst in relation to capitalism (whose secular religion is nationalism) the region was historically a late starter, in relation to the patterns of civilisational distinctiveness it was considerably more advanced then Europe, which was up until the 14th and 15th century, a civilizational backwater by comparison.
Thus literary and cultural traditions associated with Persian mirrored the position of French in Aristocratic Europe reaching well beyond the boundaries of what is today Persia and to some extent supplanting Arabic as a high literary language across whole swathes of the Islamic world. The growth of such regional centres of culture proceed apace with the development of trade and the emergence of different centres of political power within this world (and indeed outside it: one thinks of South Asia) something greatly aided by the fact that the world of Islam, in distinction to Europe up until a relatively late stage, had a much more urban and hence more urbane and cosmopolitan high culture. Vernaculars emerge in relationship to this culture, enjoying complex relationships with it.
To isolate one vernacular, and describe it as the ‘oldest nation’ makes no sense. Often terms translated as ‘nation’ mean ‘tribe’, ‘clan’ or even refer to social status (important in the Kurdish example given the brutal exploitation of the population by the leading clans, who incidently now make up the elite families who run these political parties). This is not different from Europe where the term ‘nation’ has similarly diverse meanings (oddly enough, according to one writer, being related to the emergence of medieval universities as cosmopolitan centres). To confuse these things with modern nationalism and to start talking about the relative antiquity of different ‘nations’ is a very odd thing for a Marxist to do, perhaps the complement contemporary liberal cosmopolitanism pays to contemporary irredentism.
On the issue of Kurdish right to self determination my position would be rather similar to Lenin’s on the national question in Europe. Divorce is a right but its not always something you advocate. I think Communists would argue both against the local great power interests who manipulate the Kurdish question (inheritors of the British who used Kurdish fighters against Iraqi nationalist aspirations), point out the venality of the leadership (who in the early 90’s actually invited Saddam Hussain into their territory in order to continue their factional battles with each other) and argue against both the demand for seperation and the chauvinism of the local states (concretely this would mean opposing and fighting against repression etc). If however it was not possible to win this battle seperation would be the price paid for the venality of the other ruling classes.
But it would probably be a disaster for all concerned, lead to renewed bouts of ethnic cleansing on both sides of the border and strengthen reaction. And yes, clearly, the aim would be to turn it into a ‘little Kurdish Ulster’ for the western powers. History demonstrates that whenever the western powers have been trusted its been a disaster for the Kurds. A poisened chalice of liberation.
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 25, 2007 at 11:27 am
JohnG,
thank you for your contribution,
n terms of your views on these topics would be easier to always say “I’m not too original on the subject and wish to parrot Lenin’s/Trotsky’s (other political deity) point of view”??
it would save a lot of time
leaving aside the waffle, and I somehow doubt that Lenin’s view on nationalism will carry any weight with the Kurds
I would have assume that if you oppose the creation of the Kurdish state that you oppose the creation of the Palestinians state, for the sake of consistency?
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 11:59 am
Surely even my opponents can see what a tiresome twit modernity is. One historical problem with the development of Kurdish nationalism was the domination of the Aga’s. As people who have read Hanna Batatu’s magnificant tome on Iraq will know the Kurdish peasentry of Iraq was one of the most bitterly exploited peasentries of the region. And they were exploited by the Aga’s who remained very prominant in Kurdish politics. Whilst there was always a modernist trend, this remained a minority, and the majority opposed land reforms carried out by the centralised states of the region to protect their power. This marked the main distinguishing feature of Kurdish nationalism from anti-colonial nationalism which, whatever its other crimes, was concerned with questions of modernisation and development which involved land reforms. This meant that many Kurdish intellectuals were ambivulent when it came to choosing between Iraqi, Arab, or Kurdish nationalism. On the one hand the repressiveness of centralising regimes which saw the Kurds entirely as a security problem was a major factor shaping consiousness on the other hand the brutal and feudal Aga’s who bled the peasentry and stifled any hope for progress where another. Its a tragic situation, and the small change of Modernities sarcasm demonstrates little but his profound lack of interest in the fate of either the Kurdish people or the region, an attitude identical to that of the western powers currently occupying it.
The following is a reasonoble discussion although I’m not sure of all of it (note that the medium of discussions of Kurdish identity up until the late 18th century was Persian). Read Hanna Batatu, find something out about the place, and then perhaps it would be possible to take your crocodile tears seriously:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/lib/kurdish_ex.html
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 12:00 pm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/lib/kurdish_ex.html
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I had answered Modernities pathetic and embarressing post, but unfortunately it was eaten up. The above link contains interesting information but the real source ought to be Hanna Batatu. One of the tragedies of Kurdish nationalism was always its domination by the feudal Aga’s who viciously exploited the peasentry (making the Kurdish peasent one of the most miserably oppressed peasentries of the region) and bitterly opposed land reforms which would have deprived them of their power. The Kurdish intelligentsia therefore by the 1950’s found themselves in a deeply tragic and ambivulent situation when confronted with the rise of different kinds of nationalism. On the one side the repressive and centralising tendencies of anti-colonial nationalism shaped consiousness, on the other side the fact that land reforms and modernisation were part of the project of that nationalism, whilst the leaders of Kurdish nationalism opposed it (indeed a case can be made that the leading figures of Kurdish nationalism during this period were largely nationalists because they opposed land reforms) meant that it to, was a draw.
The combination of these factors meant that Kurdish nationalism was always very different from the nationalism of the Palestinian movement (to give one example). As Socialists we support land reform and oppose feudalism. I know that you only oppose feudalism when it is of the correct imaginary Islamist type (imaginary because the dominant forms of popular political Islam in the ME do not oppose land reform) but for some of us who actually are real Socialists these are real issues. And they represent the real reasons why there was always an ambivulence about Kurdish nationalism: its social content. And the social content clearly had political consequences. But of course none of this matters when your striking poses on an imaginary barricade.
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Modernities definition of waffle: anything with which he’s unfamiliar.
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 2:43 pm
…but nevertheless has wery stwong feelings about….pass the brusschetta’s someone. Those AWFUL anti-war people, why-oh-why, etc, etc.
Mike said,
April 25, 2007 at 2:52 pm
The only logical thing I can see in that gallimaufry of sesquipedalian sentences is that Marxists support nationalities’ right to “divorce”. Indeed we do. And though, as Volty actually said, we don’t necessarily advocate all-out armed revolt all the time, it follows that if the majority of Kurds in Turkey want independence we support their struggle, even if it is violent.
I am somewhat confused, John, that you criticise others for applying one European historical term (”nation”
to the Middle East and then use another yourself (”feudalism” 
with complete insouciance. You must be aware of the diversity of economic and social development in that region.
If the Kurds haven’t existed as a nation-state or a political organisation of nationality (which is what you seem to mean by “nation”
they have certainly existed as an self-conscious ethnic group for over a thousand years and probably much longer. But this is irrelevant. It really doesn’t matter *when* Kurdish nationalism in the modern bourgeois sense began, the fact is it exists now. To deny self-determination to a major national group is to postpone the struggle for socialism in the Middle East for ever. Which the SWP is good at.
JohnGenocide said,
April 25, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I believe that the Palestinian case is differnet and more pressing than all others because
a. they are fighting Jews
b.They are fighting a democracy.
c.It channels my anti imperialism into placard sized chunks.
Igor Belanov said,
April 25, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I find it a shame that left-wing people often seem to have much clearer ideas about nationalism and how to advocate it than they do about socialism.
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Mike,
By Feudalism I mean, as most Marxists familiar with issues of third world development do, power associated with ownership of land. The term came to be used because the left was centrally pre-occupied with the question of land reform in most decolonised countries. In Afghanistan by feudalism I mean the power of the Khan, in India one could speak of bhumihar’s, rajputs and Zamindars, and in Kurdistan one speaks of the Aga’s. The idea that you can have socialist revolutions whilst supporting such groups is what is really ludicrous.
This social systems associated with this power over the land meant first of all the most terrible oppression and suffering for the peasentry and secondly a barrier to modernisation and development. One very important factor that shaped the rise of Arab nationalism was the bizarre combination of formally parliamentry monarchies, whose institutions were packed full of landowners. In many parts of the middle east military officers tended to be drawn from families representing the poorer peasentry. Hence the association between military coups and Radical Nationalism: these parliaments bourgoise in form were feudal in content. Combined and Uneven development, and in the absence of the working class playing a revolutionary role various radical officers seize power, on a program of radical nationalism (which really meant breaking the back of the ‘old social classes’).
Hence the social struggles of the period (and again I would commend Hanna Batatu’s book which is the most detailed monograph available, and which, if truth be told, is still used as a kind of primary source by most historians) revolve around the question of attitude to land reforms, the question of the nationalisation of oil being of equal importance.
This is a very important part of the story of the institutional form taken by Arab Nationalism across the region, as well as the great divide between authoritarian military republics on the one hand and despotic feudal monarchies on the other.
If you don’t understand this you understand nothing at all about the politics of the region over the last fifty years.
But it really doesn’t seem your very interested in understanding anything. What on earth has happened to peoples Marxism that they are so deeply uninterested in the social relations of the region they claim to know so much about, and instead prate a lot of garbage about ‘ethnic consiousness’ which has existed for thousands of years etc, etc, like ludicrous trainee nationalists.
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 3:49 pm
‘oldest nation in the region’ etc, etc. jesus christ. ‘the smoke of the peshmurga’s gun’. Why is it that you guys look like perverse mirror images of the stereotypes you claim to reject? (those stereotypes having nothing to do with reality of course).
JohnGenocide said,
April 25, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“The idea that you can have socialist revolutions whilst supporting such groups is what is really ludicrous.”
However.
I support Hezbollah and Hamas who are clerical fascist.
They can be part of a socialist revolution.
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 4:05 pm
read pages 4, 5 and 6.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/parenti/4
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 4:06 pm
why does shiraz socialist support allow right wing scumbags like ‘johngenocide’ above to troll here?
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 25, 2007 at 4:24 pm
JohnG,
you managed to avoid giving a succinct answer to the question:
do you support the establishment of a Kurdistan?
I presume that you and many others (rightly in my view) support the creation of a Palestinian state and yet you are ambivalent towards the creation of a Kurdish state, unless it fits into your geopolitical scheme of things
can’t to see how unsatisfactory that is? and how shifty you appear?
PS: concerning John Genocide, he is rather tasteless but seems to convey your true sentiments, unless you forget your cheerleading of Hezbollah last summer? or your ambivalent towards Hezbollah’s warcrimes
so all in all, if you don’t like people taking the piss then don’t act like a political charlatan and cheerleader for Hassan Nasrallah, how you are perceived is entirely in your own hands
JohnHangUntilGamey said,
April 25, 2007 at 4:26 pm
As I seek to discredit Kurdish claims by branding them feudal,clannish ad tribal I’d like to clear up a small inconsistency.
I do not see the kidnapping of Alan Johnstone by a Palestinian clan as damaging the Palestinian case.
because they still kill jews.
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 6:19 pm
So you don’t care about reality, about history, about society, about anything at all concrete about these societies or the people who live in them. But we’re supposed to believe that you really, really, really care about them as individuals. Forgive me if I don’t believe you.
All I can remember about the argument about Hezbollah was that I explained that if you bomb half a country you can’t be too terribly surprised if they lob some back. This just seems common sense to me, and it seems equally commonsensical to regard the hysteria about ‘the warcrimes’ of Hezbollah as rather farcical coming from people who bent over backwards to justify the far more serious war crimes committed by Israel.
Oh, and I also remember people being rather upset when presented with facts about the near complete absence of Hezbollah actions against Israeli civilians in the whole proceeding period of their existence. Despite the periodic and deliberate mass slaughter of civilians by Israel in Lebanon every six years or so.
But, I know. Its terribly tasteless to discuss the facts of the matter. Lets instead mouth meaningless moral platitudes and feel good about ourselves.
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 6:20 pm
But I see the looney hate mongers and racists have taken over now. Nice popular front this is.
johng said,
April 25, 2007 at 6:22 pm
And yes I am ambiguous about whether or not there ought to be a seperate Kurdistan. I oppose the national oppression of the Kurds. But I’m not at all sure that a seperate Kurdistan is the answer.
JohnGameoff said,
April 25, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Who are the racists on here?
JohnG?
It can only be he,the ally of anti semites,but not the BNP.
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 25, 2007 at 8:06 pm
JohnG wrote:
it seems equally commonsensical to regard the hysteria about ‘the warcrimes’ of Hezbollah
either you accept that war crimes (such as those committed by Hezbollah) defined by international humanitarian law or by your own subjective view of the world
it cannot be both
if you accept international humanitarian law then you’re required to acknowledge (based on the widespread evidence, and not just subjective opinion) that Hezbollah committed war crimes by deliberately targeting civilians in Israeli, from the initial attack and beyond
if you do not accept it, then presumably you don’t consider that Israeli civilians are worthy of humanitarian concern? and we know wear that sick line of reasoning leads eh?
if you’re in any doubt about Hezbollah and their warcrimes, do a simple google search. eg
“(New York, July 18, 2006) – Hezbollah’s attacks in Israel on Sunday and Monday were at best indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas, at worst the deliberate targeting of civilians. Either way, they were serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today.”
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/18/lebano13760.htm
oh JohnG, by the way, are you still providing excuses for Hassan Nasrallah’s antisemitic outbursts?
see “The London Review of Hezbollah By Eugene Goodheart”
http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=733
disagreements over the Kurds are one thing, but sucking up to Hezbollah is entirely another matter
Jules said,
April 25, 2007 at 8:42 pm
The sort of personal vindictive abuse John G has been on the recieving end of is totally unacceptable. The mods should delete those comments and ban that ip adress. This was very nearly a good debate. Not that modernity’s Zionist obsessions have helped much.
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 25, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Banned Jules? not put up against a wall?
I would have preferred for JohnG not to engage in his habitual subterfuge but his comments are on record and so are the war crimes of Hezbollah, and the evidence of Hezbollah’s war crimes won’t change irrespective of our opinions, they are facts.
unless of course you adopt some postmodernist view of the world that facts are whatever you wish them to be, which is it Jules?
oh and I am very intolerant of apologists for Hassan Nasrallah’s antisemitic outburst, as should you, see the dissent article for clarification
JohnGameoff said,
April 25, 2007 at 9:14 pm
You are all racists.
I only support anti semites.
(And Serb paramilitaries)
Jules said,
April 25, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Modernity - despite the verbal gymnastics of that article, the facts remain that those Nasrallah quotes have been disowned by the newspaper in which it appeared and no independent authentication of its existence has beenforthcoming - although it was allegedly made at a widely reported public speech.
If we accept Hezbullah committed war crimes against Israel then you must also acknowledge that they are only a tiny of faction of Israel’s war crimes against Lebanon (which during its two decade occupation included systematic torture, rape and killings, the bombs in 1982 that killed 20,000 people,thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians slaughtered in refugee camps and a further 1000 and mass civilian infrastructure destruction in the last war)?
Do you acknowledge these facts? Have you written posts expressing outrage about them?
Or do you only care about Israelis?
Anyway I’m not going to comment on this any more - its not relevant to the thread.
JohnGSOAS said,
April 25, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Not abuse Jules.
Just a bit of piss taking.
When Johnny stops confusing anti semitism with anti imperialism, I’ll stop.
OK?
JohnsupplyteachG said,
April 25, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Palestinian clan kidnaps journalist.
Kurd clan conspires in free press.
NOW THATS WHY KURDS ARE LESS DESERVING OF A STATE!
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 25, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Jules,
in fact Nasrallah’s utterances have been verified by Eugene Goodheart, an academic, as the above article indicates
of course if you wish to believe that no matter what Nasrallah says that none of his utterances are antisemitic that is entirely another matter, interpretation of evidence is one thing disregarding the wealth of evidence is either irrational, shows political malice, prejudice or plain stupidity, which is it?
on the topic of war crimes, it is not some game of cards where one set of atrocities are wiped out by another
if leading human rights organisations have documented Israeli warcrimes, then I am prepared to believe them based on the evidence
but that wouldn’t change anything concerning Hezbollah as such events are separate events and thus should be judged accordingly,
leading human-rights organisations (no friends of Israel), have documented extensive warcrimes committed by Hezbollah, and those actions are independent of absolutely anything in the world, if they’re war crimes they are war crimes, based on the evidence, “mitigating” circumstances do not change the facts on the ground
returning to the Kurds, it brings up a wider issue, the lack of consistency that some people have between the treatment of the Kurds and the Palestinians, I favour a Palestinian state and state for the Kurds, I don’t think either is beyond the circumstances
I think it is completely arrogant for people who live in nationstates to argue that stateless refugees cannot have the protection of a state, even if that state is less than perfect
most of us take for granted the protection that a nationstate confers and often we don’t realise the precarious situation that the Kurds and the Palestinians live in
they deserve to be treated more than just pawns in some geopolitical scheme
Will said,
April 26, 2007 at 12:59 am
“Zionist obsessions”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hahHa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hahHa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
voltaires_priest said,
April 26, 2007 at 6:05 am
why does shiraz socialist support allow right wing scumbags like ‘johngenocide’ above to troll here?
Coming from someone who (as far as I can gather) attributed comments that I didn’t make to me on “lenin’s tomb”, and who disappeared when I called you on it, and who has repeatedly slandered Jim and I as “racists” - without being censored or banned - on this site, that’s a bit rich.
voltaires_priest said,
April 26, 2007 at 6:19 am
Yes it is Voltaire. What do you mean by ‘nation’?
Are you quite serious? This isn’t Derrida 101, and I don’t propose to get involved in the sort of stupid and sematic side-track debate so beloved of po-mo so-called “marxists” in arts and humanities departments. Are you saying that the Kurds are not a nation, and that they don’t deserve a state?
Your first substantial post is simply gobbledegook, attempting to waffle away the SWP’s historic (and honourable) position on the Kurds’ right to self-determination by use of weasel words about tribes, clans etc. Kurdish people are not unclear about the history of their nation, nor are they unclear about what a nation means. The fact that you are concerned to talk down an oppressed people’s right to self-determination merely marks a further sign of your and your organisation’s political degeneration. You should be ashamed of yourself.
‘oldest nation in the region’ etc, etc. jesus christ. ‘the smoke of the peshmurga’s gun’. Why is it that you guys look like perverse mirror images of the stereotypes you claim to reject? (those stereotypes having nothing to do with reality of course).
And this is the guy who complains about “hate mongers”? You seem to do very little but waffle and slander in equal measure. Not to mention the fact that you seem to have decided that it’s “racist” of people to take the piss out of you. And then you have the hide to talk about people becoming stereotypes?
johng said,
April 26, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I’m glad that Jules has some sort of principled postion on standards of debate. I don’t know whether we agree on other things or not but its the standard one expects from other socialists. Voltaire I have no memory of being called on anything. On Jim Denham you might explain what is wrong with my position on his wholly reactionary position on the current conflict, one which you actually disagree with yourself. On the Kurdish question I would remind you of the context of the discussion. It is not post-modernist to oppose primordialist theories of nationalism. And it is not post-modernist to mock people who talk about ‘Nations’ as being thousands of years old. Irish nationalists are also clear about the history of their nationalism. Whatever my political position on that struggle I am not a nationalist and I therefore do not believe that there is a history of an Irish nation stretching back thousands of years. These are just basic Marxist positions.
I’m amazed that you allow rabid Zionists to conduct hate campaigns against Socialists on this site which involve grotesque maligning of both individuals and basic Marxist catagories. As I said, a peculiar form of popular frontism this. The problems I raised about Kurdish nationalism in Iraq and their wider significance are based on what is widely accepted as being the best historical account of the emergence of modern Iraq and its history, that is Hanah Batata’s. I note that the book was used even by the AWL on its discussions of Iraq. I also attempted to point out that it is not possible to seriously discuss the network of oppressions based on ethnicity, language and sectarian identity in the region without some knowledge of crucial issues of social relations around land and its ownership.
These things are really basic. They inform, as any Marxist might expect, much of the history of communal, ethnic and sectarian tension. These become much more marked as this logic becomes connected to the emergence of the modern state system. I was asked why my position on Kurdish nationalism was different to Palestinian nationalism. I answered the question. As is by now becoming wearily familiar, because the answer did not fit into the required stereotypes (and because importantly, these stereotypes are the only thing that people seem to know about) I am accused of being ‘post-modern’. What on earth is supposed to be post-modern about talking about the importance of land reforms I have no idea.
As to bizarre accusations that I accused Kurds of being a clan (I didn’t actually: I stated that the term ‘nation’ was used in the pre-modern period, in both Europe and the Middle East to refer to lots of things: clan being one of them) or that it is somehow wrong to talk about the well-known tension in Kurdish nationalism between the feudal Aga’s and more secular elements, I can only suggest that if people are not even interested in social reality they should not accuse others of being post-modernist.
Igor Belanov said,
April 26, 2007 at 3:05 pm
You still haven’t adequately explained why you favour one nationalism and dismiss another. Therefore people are very likely to insinuate that this inconsistency is because of anti-Americanism and anti-semitism.
johng said,
April 26, 2007 at 5:15 pm
But I have. Its not in any case about ‘favouring nationalism’. I’m not a nationalist. But the historic contrast between Kurdish nationalism and the general anti-colonial nationalism’s that became one of the dominant forms in the region, related to the question of land reforms. Historically in the 1950’s and 60’s as I tried to point out this even put the Kurdish intelligentsia into a bind. On the surface the regional tensions between constitutional feudal monarchies and authoritarian military modernisers centred around the question of land reforms (this real history is simply ignored by people whose only purpose is to denounce the anti-war left for being anti-Israel). Kurdish nationalism has a tragic history of being dominated by what in the third world are often called ‘feudal forces’ ie those forces most opposed to land reforms. Thus the Kurdish intelligentsia faced on the one hand by national oppression from increasingly centralised (and militarised) developmentalist regimes and on the other by feudal Aga’s whose main basis for opposing these regimes was to prevent land reforms found themselves in a tragic situation. The Aga’s vacillated between opposing the regime when their interests were threatened to collaberating with it to smash any opposition to their power in the region. As stated this situation was on-going even in the early 90’s when there was relative autonomy with one faction inviting Saddam Hussain in to smash their rivals.
On a larger scale there is a difficulty with the much wider question of the oppressions heaped on oppression that make up the tribal, sectarian and ethnic hierarchies of the region (with minorities of one kind or another sitting on top of pyramids of oppression right across the region). Socialists on the one hand have always supported the right to self determination. On the other hand historically, they’ve also always been aware of the horrors of partition (particularly in the colonial situation). This is a real problem in the real world and not something spun out of my head. I am opposed to the partition of Iraq in the same way I would have been opposed to the partition of the Indian subcontinent. If people find that eccentric I suspect thats simply because they know very little about the historical debates around this question.
The question of Palestine seems to me quite different. Historically the nationalism that developes amongst the Palestinians was indeed divided by the feudals and the modernists. The modernists won out. Palestinian nationalism was a dagger at the heart of every one of the monarchist regimes and at the same time an embarressment to the radical Arab nationalist ones. I’m a Socialist. I want to see the transformation of the whole region. Every line I write is premissed on that. I have no trouble with Modernity, Sack Cloth and Ashes, and the various cowardly pugilists of the status quo who come on here with their foul slanders and innuendos. I’m rather more suprised by the attitude of people who at some level must believe in socialist revolution engaging in this ridiculous kind of slander and simply refusing to engage in any serious debate about the very real problems of the national question as it has historically confronted the left in the Middle East.
Its sad.
JohnHangUntilGamey said,
April 26, 2007 at 6:03 pm
The Palestinian modernists won out.
Then lost to the 7th century theocrats.
Buts its OK.
They kill Jews.
johng said,
April 26, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I really think it comes to something when people are allowed to post under monickers implying deaththreats to socialists. WTF is wrong with you people?
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 26, 2007 at 7:56 pm
JohnG wrote:
monickers implying deaththreats to socialists.
where exactly did that happen? the precise wording please
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 26, 2007 at 8:06 pm
but I think Igor hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
You still haven’t adequately explained why you favour one nationalism and dismiss another. Therefore people are very likely to insinuate that this inconsistency is because of anti-Americanism and anti-semitism.
on the surface of things, you might suppose that the likes of the SWP determine their political positions by orientation themselves towards any enemies of America (or Israel) and in this case because it might be argued that the Kurds are more “American” friendly then that is a black mark against them in the SWP book, thus the ambivalence
and so it is with the Palestinians, their “enemy” is Israel thus the SWP support them, I would expect that once Israel and the Palestinians finally settle their disputes then the Palestinians will be subject to venom from SWP ideologues, such as JohnG
it’s all a very crude way of thinking, no matter how JohnG dresses it up and it goes against the long held notion of self-determination for oppressed people, but that is probably just another shibboleth?
voltaires_priest said,
April 27, 2007 at 5:44 am
Voltaire I have no memory of being called on anything.
I would refer you to the comments that you recently attributed to me on Lenin’s Tomb, presumably in the hope that I wouldn’t notice. I replied, you vanished without responding, predictably.
It is not post-modernist to oppose primordialist theories of nationalism.
It is post-modernist to divert a substantive discussion by quibbling over the definition of one word in one sentence in a large article. It is also in any case not “basic Marxism” to define a nation as a state - they are not synonymous. Further, it is rank hypocrisy for you to line up uncritically with anyone who shares your basic stance on national questions where you do support the struggle for independence (cf Palestine, whose nationhood you don’t quibble about), but to humm and hah about it on Kurdistan when we all reading this can take a good guess at the real reason why you’re doing so.
As to bizarre accusations that I accused Kurds of being a clan (I didn’t actually: I stated that the term ‘nation’ was used in the pre-modern period, in both Europe and the Middle East to refer to lots of things: clan being one of them)
More backwheeling.
I’m amazed that you allow rabid Zionists to conduct hate campaigns against Socialists on this site which involve grotesque maligning of both individuals and basic Marxist catagories. As I said, a peculiar form of popular frontism this.
The “rabid Zionists” also wonder at why I allow a member of the SWP to come on here, write incoherent po-mo influence wibblings, slander people and misattribute stances without fear of censure or ban. I do so because I support the idea of freedom of speech. And if you think someone calling you a silly name constitutes a “hate campaign” then you really haven’t been through a lot in life.
voltaires_priest said,
April 27, 2007 at 5:46 am
I really think it comes to something when people are allowed to post under monickers implying deaththreats to socialists. WTF is wrong with you people?
Eh?
Have you been on the sauce?
voltaires_priest said,
April 27, 2007 at 5:48 am
it’s all a very crude way of thinking, no matter how JohnG dresses it up and it goes against the long held notion of self-determination for oppressed people, but that is probably just another shibboleth?
Of course, we all know that he’d instantaneously reverse his stance and stop blithering on about the Agas if the PUK declared war on the US…
TWP said,
April 27, 2007 at 9:13 am
Regardless of my disagreements with JohnG, I think that the nasty comments which are intended to belittle his going to univeristy are bullshit. I currently attend uni three nights a week as well as having a job, work extremely hard at my course work and enjoy engaging with fellow students about politics.
I’m all for people disagreeing, but personally insulting someone because they are getting an education is just crass anti-intellectualism. What should JohnG and I be doing? Working in a factory to prove our working class credentials - oh wait scratch that - I already did that for 4 years when I was in the US SWP! Let’s stop this nonsense and stick to the politics of the debate.
tim said,
April 27, 2007 at 10:29 am
Theres nothing wrong with John going to university,besides the fact that he hasn’t learnt much.
The problem is with his reflex support for any “nationalist” movement that is anti US,UK or Israel while searching for caveats in the case of any others.
Plus his support for anti semitic fascists.
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 27, 2007 at 10:41 am
TWP wrote:
What should JohnG and I be doing? Working in a factory to prove our working class credentials
the issue primarily is not one of working-class credentials but one of intellectual honesty, and what should be expected from budding academics
my understanding is that academic research should be based on evidence based reasoning, where there is a search for plausible and intellectually robust interpretations of the evidence, but that is not always the case with JohnG’s utterances
I think people expect more of him, an occasional bit of honesty, the ability to admit that he doesn’t understand something or that he could be wrong and that, more importantly he does not misrepresent peoples views (as with Volty’s comment, I saw it a few weeks back somewhere in Lenin’s Tomb haloscan stuff)
JohnG has a long history of this type of behaviour, which has been pointed out by many of the professional academics at Harry’s Place and it is very disappointing
one moment JohnG is quite reasoned and intelligent, the next moment he’s a complete political hack defending the indefensible, that is the issue
even if JohnG had a highly privileged up bringing and is seeking his doctorate at the moment, that is by the by, it is how he conducts debates that is annoying, not necessarily his opinions
I think the reason that many SWPers misrepresent their political opponents views is simple, they cannot deal with the real arguments so they have to construct a strawman to beat to death, and this type of tactic becomes obvious in the textual environment where people’s previous statements can be pointed out to them and shown in the light of their current views, thus contradictions can be highlighted
that works for most people except for political hacks who will 1) deny that they said it 2) says is a complete misinterpretation 3) split hairs 4) ignore strong evidence when it does not suit them 5) vanish until the debate is finished 6) etc
So I don’t think it’s too much to ask that fairly well-educated people (such as JohnG) try not to indulge in cheap political tricks, subterfuge, downright lying and evasion
Such tactics are not new and become very boring after the 100th incarnation and all the waffle in the world cannot hide JohnG’s intellectual dishonesty and twisting of words
TWP, if you’re in any doubt of the above, please do consult HP’s topics on Atzmon, the Middle East, etc and JohnG’s comments, also Lenin’s Tomb is replete with them, please don’t take my word for it, have a look around and see,
I would hope that people aspiring to academic qualifications at least placed some of their views on evidence based reasoning, rather than crude ideology and political lines passed down to them by others, perhaps one day JohnG will realise that
johng said,
April 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“JohnHangUntilGamey”
Thats a death threat voltaire. I don’t know why your so blind to these things and then act all surprised when people simply report on it. I didn’t attribute anything to you. I simply stated what you said. Please explain what was false about it.
Modernities (and others) pet theories about why I think what I think (based on nothing I have ever said) and long disquisitions on how my style of argument falls below what is expected of academics seem to boil down to little more then that he disagree’s with my opinions.
I have outlined my position on the questions that people have asked me about. Not a single person has responded to a single point I’ve made. I just have to assume that no one here is capable of discussion that aren’t simply propagandistic ranting.
Its a shame and quite sad as I noted.
johng said,
April 27, 2007 at 2:27 pm
One things for sure. One knows exactly how seriously to take Voltaire’s interest in the situation of the Kurds. In any case, rather charecteristically he seems to be in favour of the formation of a Kurdish state and the partitioning of Iraq, but not in favour of anyone doing anything about it. Presumably the line is to hang on and as the situation deteriates it will happen anyway. Genuinely puzzled by what he means on this. Oh and incidently it would be nice if he learnt to read. I didn’t say that the nation is the same as the state. I stated that the notion that ‘nations’ persist for thousands of years is a foolish thing to say. However I simply wrote a line about this. If he had simply conceded that that wasn’t a particularly apt formulation it would have ended there.
But that would have meant that no one would have been any the wiser about the history of Kurdish nationalism and the reasons why it has always been a tricky question for the left (it also explains why despite himself he found himself unable to explain in his original post why different factions were behaving in the way they were; perhaps he thought they just were’nt very clever or something. Well now he knows. The least he could do would be to thank me.
I mean I’m not even paid!
johng said,
April 27, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Oh yes. A great example of honest debate is to misrepresent what someone said (on ‘clans’
and when they correct it, accuse them of ‘backtracking’.
JohnGameoftwohalves. said,
April 27, 2007 at 2:41 pm
And this is a threat to chop you in half?
Prick
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 27, 2007 at 2:58 pm
JohnG,
you state above that you don’t favour the partition of Iraq? I think that is a fair representation of your views, please correct me if I am wrong
that being the case, please can you explain how the existing groups in Iraq might function together?
I say this, because if you are a supporter of the “resistance” (and by default some degree of the sectarian violence, as they go hand in hand, etc) then you cannot be necessarily in favour of the existing parliamentary system in Iraq which seems to be trying to stabilise the country, the two do not go together
the heightened violence which is integral to the actions of the “resistance” seem to increase the probability of the partition of Iraq, not lessen it
if you disagree with that, please explain how the violence and lack of stability enhances the probability of Iraq remaining one country, and not three statelets
The violence in Iraq may reach such a point where some ethnic groups decide that partition is the least worst “solution” for them, so the supporters of the “resistance” have to answer:
how does the continued violence affecting the likelihood of Iraq breaking up?
please engage with that argument, if you can
johng said,
April 27, 2007 at 3:44 pm
“if you are a supporter of the “resistance” (and by default some degree of the sectarian violence, as they go hand in hand, etc) then you cannot be necessarily in favour of the existing parliamentary system in Iraq which seems to be trying to stabilise the country, the two do not go together”
Its absolutely true that I am not in favour of the current political system in Iraq. The government is deeply sectarian, backed up by militia’s killing civilians on about the same scale as sectarian jihadists on the other side. One side is allied with the coalition the other side is not. Both forces are a barrier to the consolidation of national unity.
The desire of the coalition was to ensure the emergence of a regime that was pro-western and at the same time stable (with the emphasis on the former). These were, I believe, incompatible goals (I’ll always remember Bremner declaring that Arab Nationalism had to be removed from Iraq). This meant that everything possible was done to wipe out those forces which might oppose the occupation (in all communities) and bolster those who would support it. These tended to be the sectarians.
Despite this the overwhelming majority of military actions carried out by those not in the coalition forces are directed against coalition forces (attacks running at several hundred a day at one point). Targetting civilians is easier however and kills more people. You only need a few attacks a day (and a much less sizable infrastructure of support) to kill huge numbers of people, particularly as protecting civilians is not regarded as part of the mission of coalition troops or anybody else apart from various militia’s on both sides. The general propaganda of the coalition has been to reduce the resistance to the sectarian killers on both sides. I do not believe this is borne out by the facts.
Zarkawi and his ilk’s stated aim was to prevent the resistance falling into the hands of nationalist forces (which to them would have been a disaster: there was much worry about the potential for what might be called the Hizbollah effect of a nationalist resistance undermining the Al Qaida elements). Hence the massive targetting of sectarian targets to ensure that those elements around Al Sadr, at one point one of the only figures who looked capable of uniting sections of the insurgency across sectarian lines, would be pushed into the sectarian logic. This worked to a considerable extent, the rubicon being crossed with Al Sadr’s participation in the deeply sectarian occupation government with its organised pogroms and militia’s based inside government buildings. But the horror and scale of this assault partly reflected the panic about the alternatives.
The demonstration of a few weeks ago appeared to mark a shift back to a more nationalist position. I therefore don’t see sectarianism as an ‘integral’ part of the resistance, rather I see sectarianism as a feature of both the system set up by the British and the Americans AND the main barrier to the consolidation of resistance forces. To me they are opposites. A lurch towards sectarianism is associated on the Shi-ite side with participation in the occupation government and on the Sunni side with opposition to Iraqi nationalism (the main threat to the occupation and its supporters).
The coalition forces I’m sure would genuinely like to see the violence stop. However they are also caught out by the fact that the traditions of Iraqi nationalism which could unite people tends to be based around Arab Nationalism and percieved (in many ways correctly) as the main opponents of the coalition. This is why the coalition did so much to destroy the basis for the unity of the country at the same time as genuinely wishing for stability. To cut a long story short the Americans and the British were the last people on this earth who could have bought either stability or democracy to any country in this region.
You speak of ‘ethnic groups’ . Sunni’s and Shia’s are confessional identities, with something like one in six marriages in Iraq (this is from memory) being mixed marriages (many are now having to live apart: most would prefer this not to be a permenant arrangement). There are all sorts of other identities as well. In the past tribalism was of great importance (for all I know it probably still is, although I’ve heard that the turmoil of the last five years has utterly rewritten the map on this along with the relationship of larger communities). Understandably, overwhelmingly, Iraqi’s are against partition. Understandably (and overwhelmingly) they believe that the foreign forces should get out immediately (these polls, rather amazingly, included Kurdistan). I think this reflects a good understanding of the connection between the occupiers, the type of government they have, and the tragic dynamic unfold with such intensity.
Obviously you would believe its a kind of false consiousness or something. But most Iraqi’s want the occupiers to leave. Apparently the game is to concieve of the right to self determination and democratic institutions, in terms that self determination means anything but that. A partitioned Iraq would represent a compromise between western interests and the handful of politicians who now sit in the Green zone. It would not be a compromise between the existing peoples of Iraq.
I have heard of no evidence that Sunni’s and Shia’s want to see partition (this would probably lead to millions of deaths, and would by no means end the violence, something that escapes advocates but probably doesn’t escape most Iraqi’s) , no evidence that there is a growing body of opinion favouring this or the increased carnage that would result. I do see a lot of people determined to ensure that, as that great man Douglas Hurd said on Question Time last night, ‘we have a dignified exit strategy’ , and seeing partition as one way of achieving that (blame the Iraqi’s for their problems not ourselves). In many ways this just continues the pattern set from the beginning. It was never about the Iraqi’s or their interests. It was about us and ours.
And thats why there is carnage in Iraq and you can be sure that our mode of exit will ensure even greater carnage.
After all we have to ensure that we don’t look silly.
So as per usual I don’t accept your premisses modernity. Obviously this makes me dishonest, someone whose standards of reasoning are below par, etc, etc.
But there you go.
S said,
April 27, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Bit like blaming the disease that killed Tito for Bosnia, John.
Will said,
April 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm
John G:
““JohnHangUntilGamey”
Thats a death threat voltaire.”
****
Har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har etc. What a fucking tosspot. A death threat!? What a fucking jerkoff Game is. When he’s not tying himself up in knots with his deconstructivist Foucauldian drivel and assaulting us with his own personal viral marketing spam campaign he’s taking himself far too seriously to the point that his egotistical ‘pseudo-defiance as virtue’ stance only makes his pathetic personal ennui all the more blatant and banal at the same time. What an idiotic and ludicrous ritual in and of itself your whole existence must be. Twat.
tim said,
April 27, 2007 at 5:10 pm
John G:
““JohnHangUntilGamey”
Thats a death threat voltaire.”
Jesus.
And I thought Justin Horton ran off with the Lenins Tomb pomposity prize.
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 27, 2007 at 6:36 pm
JohnG,
thanks for your contribution, however it did not engage with the question:
how does the continued violence affect the likelihood of Iraq breaking up?
by which, I mean, does the violence in Iraq increase the probability of Iraq breaking up or lessen it?/
what is your opinion on that particular point
voltaires_priest said,
April 27, 2007 at 6:45 pm
One things for sure. One knows exactly how seriously to take Voltaire’s interest in the situation of the Kurds. In any case, rather charecteristically he seems to be in favour of the formation of a Kurdish state and the partitioning of Iraq, but not in favour of anyone doing anything about it.
Bollocks. That’s a misrepresentation of what I wrote - as I’m sure you’re more than literate enough to realise. What I’m not in favour of, is the Turkish army butchering Kurds in a war that the peshmerga couldn’t possibly win. That’s because unlike some, I don’t get off on seeing people martyred to a cause, and shouting about it from the safety of a postgrad common room in London.
voltaires_priest said,
April 27, 2007 at 6:48 pm
“JohnHangUntilGamey”
Thats a death threat voltaire.
LMFAO! That’s what you think is a “death threat”?
Only if you consider “JohnI’mdonestickaforkinme” to be a threat to impale you on a spike, is that a death threat. Pull yourself together, you big baby.
voltaires_priest said,
April 27, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Regardless of my disagreements with JohnG, I think that the nasty comments which are intended to belittle his going to univeristy are bullshit. I currently attend uni three nights a week as well as having a job, work extremely hard at my course work and enjoy engaging with fellow students about politics.
I went to university too TWP, as probably did most contributors on here. However I (and indeed you) don’t consider that a reason to drivel pompously on, writing vacuous sub-Derridean garbage about every subject under the sun. And therein lieth the difference.
Will said,
April 27, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Is there anything Game isn’t an ‘expert’ on? Anything at all?
Volty said…”as I’m sure you’re more than literate enough to realise.”
Nope - I’m not buying into that shit Volty. He’s obviously thick as a pile of elephant shit. Anyone who’s a member of the SWP is by definition for fuck’s sake!
johng said,
April 28, 2007 at 11:04 am
Modernity,
I think the sectarian violence (carried out by the existing parliamentry regime as much as by the jihadists) makes the breakup of Iraq more likely. I think the only solution to this is successful mobilisation against the Coalition backed regime (which would of course and does of course, include violence. So it depends whose violence we’re talking about. The violence of the coalition forces, the regime and the Jihadists is certainly a barrier to national unity.
However this should be qualified. It is very unclear to me that there is any move towards partition from ordinary Iraqi people or even from the sectarians. This is a brutal sectarian confrontation but I don’t think its goals are partition. Its goals revolve around questions of sovereignty and the shape of the future state.
The pressure to partition is coming solely from sections of the US foreign policy establishment. So in the end its very unclear whether the levels of violence have anything to do with the likliehood of partition. This will seem a strange conclusion but I think its neccessary to understand that even sectarian horror has its politics, and these are not the politics of partition. Those come entirely from outside.
johng said,
April 28, 2007 at 11:10 am
Voltaire,
So what do you think the Kurdish position should be? I thought it seemed to revolve around waiting as the situation worsens, perhaps the logic of the situation will simply lead to a state of its own accord. I also said though that I was unclear what your advocating (and was a bit sarcastic about this generally being the way on this site).
Perhaps you could clarify what exactly it is that you ARE advocating (or as Modernity would say ‘Answer the question you lying liar who has not just let us down but let himself down’ etc, etc).
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 28, 2007 at 12:57 pm
JohnG wrote:
I think the sectarian violence…makes the breakup of Iraq more likely.
Good, I am glad that we have agreed that most obvious of points, that the continued violence in Iraq increases the probability of some form of partition.
Now such a partition may not be part of a long-term plan of the participants but it might be a consequence of their participation in violence.
and your stated position is that you are against partition. so therefore why does the SWP and Respect support and excuse various groups which participate in violence (Muqtada al-Sadr, etc) ??
that’s the contradiction: an opposition to partition and yet support for groupings whose actions would probably lead to partition
you can argue it anyway you like, but had some political deal within the current Iraqi power structures been possible then the likelihood of partition would have been nearly non-existent
thus, supporters of the “resistance” are in a bind, the actions of the “resistance” may well lead to the eventually partition of Iraq, something that they are probably against
Here is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in, instead of acknowledging that the actions of the “resistance” may well lead to the partition of Iraq a certain sleight of hand is needed, to explain away the violence and, how by inference the “resistance” is not really responsible for it.
johng said,
April 28, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Not dishonesty Modernity. Disagreement. I’ve often noticed that you can’t tell the difference. I explained perfectly well why I don’t think its inconsistant to support the resistance and oppose partition. You’ve ignored all my actual arguments (as well as the facts of what is actually going on in Iraq) and somehow concluded that I am being ‘dishonest’. Its a really curious proceedure and the complete inability to have sensible discussions with people who disagree with you is something I’ve always found quite chilling about you. You tend to imagine yourself as an interrogator rather then a discussant. Its bizarre.
Will said,
April 28, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Spamming bastard.
Good news from Afghanistan:
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.blogspot.com/2007/04/afghanistan-40-thousand-childrens-lives.html
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 28, 2007 at 1:34 pm
JohnG wrote:
I explained perfectly well why I don’t think its inconsistant to support the resistance and oppose partition.
have you? rather than wishful thinking, I suggest that the concrete situation be examined:
had there been participation in the Iraqi power structures then a deal could have been cut between the major groupings and that lead to an end to violence, but there hasn’t been
that, above all else, increases the probability of partition
even subconsciously supporters of the “resistance” appreciate that, even if they cannot acknowledge that the actions of the “resistance” might well lead to partition
what then follows is some intellectual gymnastics which involves claiming the violence on everyone but the “resistance”
and finally, we will be told that partition is really part of some American agenda and that absolves the “resistance” of any blame, it is all rather predictable, even if wrapped up in 10,000 words
voltaires_priest said,
April 28, 2007 at 1:39 pm
So what do you think the Kurdish position should be? I thought it seemed to revolve around waiting as the situation worsens, perhaps the logic of the situation will simply lead to a state of its own accord. I also said though that I was unclear what your advocating (and was a bit sarcastic about this generally being the way on this site).
I support the establishment of a Kurdish state, certainly in what is now Northern Iraq and in all probability encompassing what are now parts of southern Turkey and Iran as well. However, in order for that to happen in a manner that is secure, there needs to be a realignment of the political forces whose fratricidal infighting has nearly destroyed the Kurdish liberation movement on a number of previous occasions.
So - as I thought was already obvious, I’m for a united Kurdish national liberation movement taking power. That isn’t what we have at the moment. I’m not for the peshmerga being slaughtered by a regional superpower before that can happen. Hence the position that I arrived at in the article.
I’m also not for reactionary scum like Ansar Al-Islam having political influence in the region. Hence my support for the PUK (flawed though that group’s own politics may be) kicking their arses all over, and my differentiation from that crude so-called “anti-imperialism” which defines itself by supporting whoever’s currently lined up against the USA.
voltairespriest said,
April 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Now, what are you in favour of?
johng said,
April 28, 2007 at 2:30 pm
“had there been participation in the Iraqi power structures then a deal could have been cut between the major groupings and that lead to an end to violence, but there hasn’t been”
Why hasn’t there been Modernity? Seriously its a bit of a tautology to suggest that if there there was a deal there could be an end to violence.
I remain convinced that there will not be any possibility of an end to violence until the occupation forces leave (and most Iraqi’s actually agree with this, and indeed would like the occupation forces to leave).
For one thing with the occupation forces gone the longed for confrontation between the nationalists and the jihadists would be much more likely and much more possible.
I suspect that I know rather more about the reality of the situation on the ground then you do but this does not imply any special virtue or that my conclusions are neccessarily correct. But it does imply that your argumentative style which involves imputing ignorence and wishful thinking could be turned back on you.
Certainly, those who supported the invasion in the name of democracy were totally ignorent of the society (one of the leading British scholars of which remembers the utter lack of curiousity about it amongst officials here) and if accusations of wishful thinking are to be hurled about it would seem best directed at those who think Britain and the US have a positive role to play in the region (given the wealth of evidence that this is not the case).
However you are quiet correct that I am very concerned that after having totally destroyed this society (not the ba’athist state for which I have no regrets) Britain and the US should be held to account, rather then get away with the usual intellectual gymnastics and refusal to take responsibility for their own actions.
johng said,
April 28, 2007 at 2:38 pm
My own position is that whilst I support the right of self determination I wouldn’t advocate it, particularly given the difficulties which you referred to, which I explained. Its unclear to me what the point is of advocating vast re-arrangements of political borders in the absence of any united movement demanding such a thing or the vaguest possibility that one might emerge.
However recognition without advocacy isn’t empty. In the context of Iran, Turkey and Iraq it would mean demanding equal rights in language, education and development, and recognition that as long as such things are not achieved those denied these fruits have the right to fight back and should be defended in doing so whatever ideologies they have or whatever the limitations of their struggle.
I’d have a rather similar position on Basque seperatism.
But I am not an advocate of a greater Kurdistan as I don’t see this as a concrete way forwad. In a way you agree but seem to want to have it both ways. I prefer to be straight about the real problems that exist.
Its also true however that I think its an extraordinarily tricky question, and I don’t see what the point is (aside from trumpeting our own virtue) in pretending that it isn’t.
johng said,
April 28, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Here is our Lenin on the latest discussions about the partition in Iraq - in Washington not in Iraq:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/04/bipartisan-bill-to-divide-iraq.html
Will said,
April 28, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Fucking spamming bastard!
Delete button Volty! Jim! Delete the fucker! Get rid of!
“our Lenin” — har har har! What a fucking wanker you are Game. And a creepy crawly fucking one at that. [shiver].
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 28, 2007 at 4:09 pm
JohnG wrote
Seriously its a bit of a tautology to suggest that if there was a deal there could be an end to violence.
fairly obviously had there been a political deal then there would have been little reason for the various factions, groupings, etc to necessarily indulge in violence
but that brings us back of violence and the “resistance”, and if the increasing violence leads to partition, then the Western supporters of the “resistance” have to explain away the violence perpetrated by the “resistance”
they have a number of options:
1) to suggest that the “resistance” isn’t really guilty of much violence
2) to state that the “resistance” is only guilty of violence against coalition forces and not against Iraqi administration, blowing up the UN building or attacking civilians, etc
3) that the violence is perpetuated mainly by the coalition forces
4) violence is perpetuated by the Jihadists and not the “resistance”
5) etc
all of that seems to require a blatant disregard for logic
Which shows the inconsistency and irrationality of Western supporters of the “resistance”, if the facts don’t fit the ideology, change the facts and blame everyone else but the “resistance” for the violence
Hmm
http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ said,
April 28, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I disagree
JohnG’s comments should be left for posterity and in a few months time when he’s done a 180 degree turn on some topic, he can be reminded of them.
He will then probably explain how there’s no inconsistency nor could there ever be, irrespective of any change in his views!
voltaires_priest said,
April 28, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Its unclear to me what the point is of advocating vast re-arrangements of political borders in the absence of any united movement demanding such a thing or the vaguest possibility that one might emerge.
Just because there isn’t one specific movement demanding it, does not illegitimise the demand. It doesn’t after all stop you supporting “the resistance” in Iraq, which in reality represents dozens of different competing interests with different demands.
The reality is that all major political forces in Kurdistan, regardless of the differences between them, support self-determination even if (like the PUK to some degree) they are willing to submerge that demand somewhat for the time being. The historical injustice involved is different to that afflicting the Basques, and the case for a state at least as strong as that of the Palestinians - you certainly haven’t convincingly made a case to the contrary. The majority of Kurds overall certainly want a state as well, and identify firmly as a people.
I think the reality here is that the SWP - contrary to its previous stance on Kurdistan - has now taken a crude “but the Kurds are lined up with the US” angle on this, which you’re trying to intellectualise retrospectively. Doing that simply does not work.
voltaires_priest said,
April 28, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Will;
John’s comments stay up. I may think most of them are bollocks, but he’s well within the (loose) behavioural bounds of this blog, therefore he has the right to make them. It’s what makes the difference between comments threads that - whilst they may sometimes get fractious - contain actual debate, and ones that contain endless repetitions of a certain blogger’s university mates going “great post Lenny!”, seemingly regardless of subject or content.
Will said,
April 28, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Basta. I was wanting to get the 100th comment here as well. Mod beat me to it. Damn.
Here’s an idea - if you won’t delete the dumb fucker’s New-Age, pseudo-intellectual, nihilist, obsurantist drivel why not set up another blog for him and put up one post and let the onanist wank on to himself in the comments box to his heart’s content? It’ll keep him busy and the rest of us amused if nothing else!
johng said,
April 28, 2007 at 5:07 pm
A bit crude really Modernity. You begin by suggesting that your own take on what is really happening in Iraq is simply indubitable and you then present a list of possible arguments against them (none of which you invalidate or examine empirically) as neccessarily simply ideologically motivated because they are obviously false (without demonstrating that they’re false). Its not very convincing unless your already convinced that the standard coalition line is the only correct way to understand whats happening in Iraq.
Voltaire seems to be operating on a similar sort of basis in the sense that his refusal to argue seriously seems connected to his ideological beliefs about my ideological beliefs (which obviously I don’t share). In terms of two substantive points he makes. I don’t think the extent of oppression should be the basis on whichwe decide about the national question and the different forms it takes (ie the comparison between Basque nationalism and Kurdish nationalism was intended to draw parrallels between positions it was possible to hold not between the extent of oppression).
In the second place you will note that I was very careful to say that as long as national oppression continues I would support those fighting against it without neccessarily approving of their program or aims. On that basis your accusation of inconsistancy rather fails given that there is not a fight on at the moment to build a greater kurdistan whilst there is a fight on (supported by the majority of the population in Iraq) to get the US and British troops out.