When a formally correct statement is an affront…
Maybe it’s just me and my well-known paranoia, but I found something that Jeremy Corbyn wrote in today’s Morning Star quite disturbing and -indeed- angering:
“While no-one of the left would support the oppressive nature of the previous Taliban regime in relation to women or education, everyone would understand the feeling of national anger against the occupation of their country, which is increasing with the length of time that coalition troops are there” (Afghanistan: the next Iraq? – Morning Star June 18 2008).
But even I had to stop and ask myself why that superficially unobjectionable little paragraph had such an effect.
I think it’s in part because of that opening “While no-one of the left…”: it makes it sound as though it goes without saying that “no-one on the left” has any sympathy with the Taliban, whereas it’s well-known that quite a few so-called “left-wingers” (including the Workers Power sect and leading figures in Respect Renewal, including Galloway), do.
But there’s more to it than that: Corbyn’s choice of word to describe the Taliban (”oppressive”) just seems so inadequate and suggests that he really needs to be reminded of just what the Taliban did when they were in power.
Corbyn’s casual use of the word “oppressive” somehow brings to mind Lillian Hellman’s early 70’s admission that Stalin was responsible for “many sins”: the terminology is so nonchalant and off-hand that the criticism itself, though formally correct, is almost an affront (and as one biographer noted “to a free spirit like Hellman, a sin is something forbidden by wrong-headed authority, something harmless and pleasurable like overeating or sleeping with your neighbour; to have it also encompass the murder of several million Russians would seem to be over-taxing three letters“).
Corbyn, imho, is actually one of the better and more honest of the present crop of left Labour MP’s: but some of the stuff he comes out with (especially in the Star) comes dangerously close to the worst kind of kitsch Pablo-Stalinism.
adammcnestrie said,
June 18, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Britain’s foreign policy is being undermined by an unwillingness to acknowledge the full force of an uncomfortable truth: Britain does not have the power to command the foreign policy outcomes that it considers desperately important. The primary baleful consequence is the default decision to continue to fight counter-insurgent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have adopted a policy of wait-and-see or occupy-and-hope, an aimless watching brief, whilst we wait for a deus ex machina to deliver us from our folly. The government’s hope of progress, of “success” is so inane because if one thinks imagines five years time, ten years, twenty – it isn’t clear how any of the fundamentals of the stalemate are going to have changed. Except the atrophy of the western will to maintain these occupations.
We remain in both countries because we don’t have the strength to accept that what we have been trying to do is impossible. We are there because things have not become bad enough, the enterprise has not worn itself out sufficiently, for us to admit that it is beyond us. Before we can conscience withdrawal we have to make sure that we have atoned for our hubris through noble suffering.
The second baleful consequence is a foreign policy that looks inward, not outwards – one which aims to assuage our howling consciences, rather than effecting desired outcomes. The combination of a collection of consciences quickened by the globalised media and British impotence reduces much of foreign policy discussion to the elaboration of empty pieties. Amongst this politics of the conscience-ache, realist discussions of power and national interest are completely absent; as is a clear-headed appraisal of the potentialities (as well as disadvantages) of American power.
Read more at my blog, just who the hell are we?, at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/
reader said,
June 19, 2008 at 3:41 am
{But there’s more to it than that: Corbyn’s choice of word to describe the Taliban (”oppressive”) just seems so inadequate and suggests that he really needs to be reminded of just what the Taliban did when they were in power.}
The AWL supported the Taliban coming to power, unlike the “Workers Power sect” or George Galloway. Never forget that.
Of course nay continued domination of Afghanistan by the occupiers would be ahceived and to the extent it is happening, is being acheived, by backing one set of warlords against another.
Only a united struggle against the occupiers would unite the masses in afghanistan along cross-sectarian lines and udnermine the power of the warlords and clerics hwo abse their pwoer on getting the best deal for their followers with the USA.
voltairespriest said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:54 am
The AWL didn’t support the Taliban as far as I’m aware, Reader – what they supported was the Mujahedin groups, in general, against the Soviets.This would have included not only what would later become the Taliban, but also the Tajik groups around Ahmed Shah Masood, Burhanuddin Rabbani et al, which would later form the core of the Northern Alliance.
johng said,
June 19, 2008 at 10:51 am
Is there any evidence that either George Galloway or Workers Power had any sympathy with the Taliban? I never heard anything suggesting this in the case of George Galloway, and in the case of Workers Power it seems rather unlikely. Is this perhaps just part of the strategy of painting those most opposed to western intervention in the region as supporters of the Taliban simply because they oppose western intervention?
Dr Paul said,
June 19, 2008 at 11:43 am
VP wrote:
Did not the Mujahedin constitute a variety of ‘Islamo-Fascism’? Did the AWL really support a brand of ‘Islamo-Fascism’? Even if it was aimed against the Soviet Union, was this not taking Shachtmanism just a little too far?
Dr Paul said,
June 19, 2008 at 11:46 am
Somehow VP’s comments on which I remarked disappeared from my post, but they are at comment # 3 above.
modernityblog said,
June 19, 2008 at 11:54 am
it’s a pity that Jeremy Corbyn has been drawn into the simplistic notion of oppositionism which dominates a lot of the Left
such a view is essentially nihilistic and lacking in historical perspective
even though Afghanistan was ruined by years of Soviet rule, Mujahideen violence and the Taliban reaction to the latter, this counts for nothing
even though the multitude of barbaric acts and murders carried out under the Taliban are documented, this is largely dismissed
what really matters is that the West has troops in Afghanistan and therefore must be opposed
no matter that the re-imposition of Taliban rule would probably mean the murder of tens of thousands if not more
no matter if the Taliban succeeded in turning Afghanistan back to the country with the worst human rights records in the world
none of that is important, in fact even the Afghans, in this mindset, are not important, what matters is that Western “imperialism” receives a bloody nose
and if as a result the Taliban come back to rule, murdering teachers, killing students, closing down girls schools, burning books, etc then that, according to this mindset, is a price worth paying, after all its happening in Afghanistan and not Islington or Camden, so why should Westerners care one way or the other?
it seems to me a subconscious Orientalist view and doesn’t take account of the consequences of any Taliban victory for real people, they are seen as incidental players in the wider struggle against Western “imperialism”
it’s not a very convincing case at the best of times and certainly not where Afghanistan is concerned, which probably in part explains why it’s only taken up by a very, very small minority in Britain
And that’s the problem, whilst some on the Left articulate (consciously or subconsciously) this type of position then it does nothing to dispel the image that much of the English Left is juvenile, nihilistic and unconcerned about real people in real countries.
Until the Left can argue a strong and positive case then it is destined to remain marginal, on the fringes of society.
johng said,
June 19, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I see that modernity is playing around with “sub-consious” responses again orientalist and otherwise. He adopts precisely the position I described which is to equate opposition to the western occupation of Afghanistan with support for the Taliban: straightfoward right wing jingoistic rubbish. I would ask again, beyond this, is there the slightest evidence that any section of the left, whether George Galloway or Workers Power or anyone else “supports the taliban” other then that they oppose the western occupation in Afghanistan. It should be remembered that on this basis it would be impossible to oppose any intervention by western powers in backward countries either in the past or in the future. Presumably Modernity supported the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviets?
reader said,
June 19, 2008 at 2:02 pm
{no matter if the Taliban succeeded in turning Afghanistan back to the country with the worst human rights records in the world}
This is happening now.
The question is why is Afghanistan divided into warring sects?
The answer is because of the economic sabotage and coup-mongering of US imperialism carried out by its natural allies in any semi-colonial state: sections of the local ruling class, in this case, regional warlord-gangsters.
This is the way which the US has dominated Afghanistan historically, and it’s continuing to do so this way, life udner occupation will always mean backing one side in a sectarian civil war against another. This is the only way the ruling class can ever survive when it steps up its exploitation of the masses.
On the other hand, the only way to unite the Afghan masses would be in their common itnerest, to resist exploitation, say no to gas pipelines for the benefit of Halliburton, no to turning their state into a vassal for US corporations, and unite to drive out the occupiers and the warlords and gangsters hwod ot heir bidding by keeping afghanistan divided into comepting sects eachtrying to get the best deal fromt he occupiers – exactly what the US and UK want.
And btw to compare what the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan to this is sick, the soviet Union was backing up an economcially nationalist secular government in Afghanistan and trying to support SAfghanistan in liebrating itself from economci domiantion from abroad – and economic domination is the root of social backwardness.
The US is backing warlords and Islamists in Afghanistan and Iraq – which previously had a secualr nationalsit govt. and now has an Islamic conservative one – in its attempt to subordinate Afghanistan to its will.
In all these analyses of imeprialism no-one mentions economcis, as if Afghan control of their own resoruces andmarkets were just a side-show here instead of the central issue.
reader said,
June 19, 2008 at 2:06 pm
and Voltaire’s Priest: they supported right-wing fundamentalist warlords fighting for an imperialist which wanted to economcially dominate Afghansitan, and against a secular economic nationalsit governemnt. Becuase thwe AWL hates nothing more than the economic nationalism of oppressed countries.
AWL is first camp, anti-third world politics, and this is why they only have sections in imeprialist countries, unlike both George Galloway and Workers Power, the former who is hugely popular in the Arab world, and the latter who have built sections in Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
AWL, British chauvinists.
SimonD said,
June 19, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Why let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
While I’m sure WP, SWP and many other principled anti-imperialists came to the conclusion that the military might of US imperialism and its allies posed even more of a threat to the Afghan people than the Taliban, in the weird world of the AWL this amounts to support for the Taliban.
Likewise, while you can’t quote anything that Jeremy C says that you oppose, it is the meaning that you put into his words that you oppose, not what he actually said in the real world.
Voltaire's Priest said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I think Jim’s possibly reading too much between the lines in Corbyn’s statement, but in general the concerns are still valid. What’s more I’m struck by the fact that people here are saying that the AWL’s support for resistance to the brutal Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (whether a good or bad idea in hindsight) is “supporting Islamist militias”, whereas WP et al’s stance on the Taliban in the current conflict is not. Typical sense of skewed vision there, folks.
BTW Dr Paul, what were the RCP saying at the time?
resistor said,
June 19, 2008 at 8:40 pm
What sort of robotic Trot can come up the phrase, ‘kitsch Pablo-Stalinism’. Is he Matgamna’s Little Sir Echo?
Jeremy Stangroom said,
June 20, 2008 at 2:56 am
“everyone would understand the feeling of national anger against the occupation of their country, which is increasing with the length of time that coalition troops are there”
Is there any evidence for that proposition?
There’s this poll – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/03_12_07_afghanpoll2007.pdf – which shows that only 14% of the Afghan population think that US troops should withdraw immediately. That is up from 8% a couple of years ago, but it’s actually a pretty small proportion of the population.
Is there other polling data floating around?
(Please, please don’t tell me that the poll is flawed. I’m perfectly well aware of the problems with this kind of polling data.)
tim said,
June 20, 2008 at 11:54 am
I don’t think Galloway supported the Taliban.
Of course he supported the Soviet invasion, as he supported all Soviet occupations of Muslim lands.
The period 1995-1998 George was in receipt of large payments from Benzair Bhuttos Government
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0403/242.html
Rumours of what he was prepared to do in exchange for the cash abound.
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/99/Dec/17/01.html
So it could be possible that he made noises, but I’ve no evidence.
The cash all disappeared, surprisingly,, and the Company Asian Voice never filed accounts.
reader said,
June 20, 2008 at 12:13 pm
{. What’s more I’m struck by the fact that people here are saying that the AWL’s support for resistance to the brutal Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (whether a good or bad idea in hindsight) is “supporting Islamist militias”, }
so let me get htis straight…supporting the Taliban-led resistance to the US invasion = supporting Islamist militias, but, supporting the Mujahideen resistance to Soviet troops, isn’t?
As for brutal invasion – not as brutal as what the US imeprialists forced on Afghansitan in the name of defeating secualr, pro-soviet economic nationalism. You’re telling me life after the victory of the “resistance” was better than if the soviet troops had won?
I’d like to see Jim Denham square this circle actually.
Of course he will come up with the old line, “in hindsight we made a mistake”.
Of course this doesn’t do much to clear you when you suddenly only revise your position on semi-colonial governemnts when they come into conflcit with your own imeprialism, in faxct even Condleeza Rice travels round the world saying “since 9/11 we’ve seen how eviil the Taleban are and how we were wrong to support such movements int he past”. So, this “in hindsight” opportunism jsu tto allow you to better pander to the same imperialist interests now who they also pandered to when they supported the Mujahideen who US/UK imeprialism backed at the time, does nothing to get the AWL off the hook for being chauvinists.
modernity said,
June 20, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I think Galloway made some dodgy comment about the Taliban on a Question Time, months back, but as ever he left enough wiggle room to get out of it.
johng said,
June 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Still waiting for the tinest smidgen of evidence that the left is guilty of any of the things that Jim attributes to them above.
modernity said,
June 20, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Jim,
don’t waste your time, if JohnG wants to find it he’ll learn to use google, which means he won’t.
johng said,
June 20, 2008 at 4:03 pm
shouldn’t have to use google. either you have evidence for these allegations or you don’t. if you don’t then what is the conversation about?
modernityblog said,
June 20, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Jim,
as shown before, NO matter what evidence you provide it will always be insufficient for the likes of JohnG and his comrades, in the end he’ll just say “But it doesn’t “prove” any such thing”, as shown below http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/dont-be-so-critical/ and http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/quotes-of-the-day/
don’t waste your time
johng said,
June 20, 2008 at 6:15 pm
No. Jim has made specific allegations firstly about george galloway secondly about workers power. given the fact that the government is intent on locking people up for things like this, it would be nice to know if he has a shred of evidence for his allegations that either are sympathetic to the taliban. i of course reserve the right to disagree if the evidence is nonsense (as yours was) but the interesting thing here is, that the ONLY evidence produced on this entire thread is that George is alleged to have had something “DODGY” on question time which apparently you can’t remember.
Jim Denham said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:49 pm
John G: if you doubt Galloway’s support for the Taliban, follow the lead I gave to his Newsnight statement “The Taliban are not my enemy”; also his many articles in the Morning Star and elswhere referring to the “national resistance” of the “Afghan people”, etc, etc: it is clear that he means the Taliban (and if he doesn’t, then who the hell *is* he on about?) As for Workers Power, they are *on record*, in *their own publications*, as supporting the Taliban; I’ve personally heard their people at public meetings saying that they support the Taliban: what more evidence do you want? I find it amazing that John is apparently unaware of these simple facts. But then he *is* the same John G who once claimed to me during a Socialist Alliance email debate, that there was no evidence of the SWP supporting Saddam Hussein!
reader: The AWL *never* supported the Taliban and I defy you to point to aany evidence to the contrary. Opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did not necessarily entail giving positive political support to the Islamist resistance, as I’d have expected someone like you to understand, given your present postion on Afghanistan. Btw: after the Soviet withdrawal, the AWL actually gave critical political support to the Najibullah regime; so, once again, reader, *where’s* the evidence of AWL support for the Taliban?
And you notice, reader, I have said nothing about “hindsight”. As for opposing third worldist politics, reader: opposition to petit bourgeois nationalism and cross-class alliances is often, prosaically, known by pedants as … Marxism.
modernityblog said,
June 20, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Jim,
you’re correct about Worker’s Power (the search took less than 20 seconds):
“The Taliban are gathering support and strength throughout the region, and now have a presence in over half the country. Their policies are undoubtedly reactionary. Last month they produced a constitution, proposing executions in public, women being fully covered and having no right to education, and banning all light entertainment as anti-Islamic.
It would be wrong to suggest, as the western media often does, that there is a single insurgency movement called the Taliban. The resistance is in fact far more varied. Nevertheless, support for radical Islam is rising. It is the force in the region that has fought the occupiers most consistently.
The anti-war movement in the West must show solidarity with all forces fighting the occupation. Of course, we have the right – and internationalist duty – to criticise the Islamists’ aims and methods. But our anti-imperialism is rendered meaningless if we do not support those fighting imperialism on the ground in Afghanistan and across the Middle East.”
http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=159,1539,0,0,1,0
tim said,
June 20, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Jim, You’ll find no evidence of Galloway supporting the Taliban, because he didn’t.
His “I have no enemies in Afghanistan” stuff is just the usual stuff, irrelevant and pinning jello on a wall.
When George was taking cash from Pakistan, he shunned taking up forced marriage as an issue,and according to some, did lobbying for Pakistans under age sweat shops, but never supported the Taliban.
modernityblog said,
June 20, 2008 at 10:57 pm
reading the above is simple enough for those familiar with the wily ways of politicos, there are a few weasel words, a bit of misdirection and enough wiggle room for all
let’s examine some of the propositions:
1) to avoid complicity or the accusation of supporting the Taliban openly WP use the rather spurious comments of ” that there is a single insurgency movement called the Taliban. The resistance is in fact far more varied.” to cloud the issue. So without the benefit of any evidence or substance to back it up, the Taliban has been morphed into the “resistance” by WP – a much more palpable entity. How exactly they would know that composition, as an incontrovertible fact, whilst being some 6000 miles away from Afghanistan is a question itself
2) the crunch is “must show solidarity with all forces”, which without naming the Taliban directly encompasses the Taliban, mere word play by WP
3) next is one of the most bogus of statements “we have the right – and internationalist duty – to criticise the Islamists’ aims and methods.” in theory? but strangely enough there’s never any criticism in practice, you could scour their web sites for days and you won’t find any criticism of the Taliban’s attacks on teachers, girls, old caretakers or the burning down of schools, it’s just a form of words, a meaningless get clause and should be taken as such
so whilst Workers Power doesn’t say directly “we support the Taliban”, that is the gist of their article, and let’s not be so foolish as to assume that politicos would be so literal, when they can use euphemisms and wordplay to indicate their views.
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 1:16 am
{so whilst Workers Power doesn’t say directly “we support the Taliban”, that is the gist of their article, and let’s not be so foolish as to assume that politicos would be so literal, when they can use euphemisms and wordplay to indicate their views.}
Jim Denham doesn’t agree with you:
{The AWL *never* supported the Taliban and I defy you to point to aany evidence to the contrary. Opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did not necessarily entail giving positive political support to the Islamist resistance, as I’d have expected someone like you to understand, given your present postion on Afghanistan}
Speaking of euphemisms, for our selectively naive friend modernity I’ll clarify: the AWL supported the mujahideen against the Soviet Union, more than just, as Jim Denham says, “opposing the invasion”. The AWL weren’t “third campist” back then.
By the way to respond to your question Jim Denham, no I don’t understand how you can back the division of a country under warlords and gangsters in the interests of better dominating it, but oppose secular economic nationalist regimes trying to stand up to IMF/World Bank diktats with the aid of the Soviet Union. But then when those reacitoanries whose rise to pwoer youc overed for get to pwoer, and eventually clash with their ex-patrons, forcing them to lean on the mass movement to resist being replaced with an even more pliant wing of the bourgeoisie, you reject the right of t5he masses to resist ebcause the eladership of the movement is bourgeois.
But of course you don’t support cross-class national blocs. Except the KLA, Fatah against Hamas, etc. It’s ok to support them.
I don’t know what your method is. It’s not Trotsky’s:
{In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat.}
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm
johng said,
June 21, 2008 at 10:02 am
Stating that the Taliban is not my enemy is not the same as supporting them. It is to state that we have no business being in Afghanistan or engaging in conflict there, I would have thought a basic position for any socialist. The statements about insurgency morphing into a generalised resentment of what the soldiers bring with them is one backed up by British officers in the field (one of whom resigned his commission because, as he stated, ‘I did not join the British Army to kill hungry peasents”), and almost anyone who knows anything about Afghan society (resistance to both the central state and foreign troops backing that central state being woven into the fabric in that unhappy country). That these statements come a) from actual experiance in the field of combat and b) any materialist analyses of Afghan society, is of course not sufficiant for those like Jim and Modernity, who are far more concerned to attack the anti-war movement and any socialist who opposes imperialism then they are with anything happening in faraway places of which they know nothing.
charliethechulo said,
June 21, 2008 at 10:10 am
“faraway places of which they know nothing”: a bit rich coming from a supporter of the Stop the War Coalition, which has always used the most insular, nationalistic “bring our troops home” arguments and has scabbed upon Iraqi (and Iranian) trades unionists.
As for John G’s oh-so-profound comment about “Stating that the Taliban is not my enemy is not the same thing as supporting them”: OH YES IT IS, in the case of Galloway. Think WW2, Proletarian Military Policy and substitute “Nazis” for “Taliban”.
johng said,
June 21, 2008 at 10:43 am
So if you don’t think there is any analogy between the taliban in backward afghanistan (a predominatly peasent country which has been bombed to bits by various superpowers over the last thirty years, a country for which ‘modernity’ has meant helicopter gunships and napalm and poisen gas) and Adolf Hitler in advanced capitalist Germany (a Nazi regime which succeded in conquering almost the whole of imperialist Europe) this means you support the Taliban’s politics? This rests on the notion that unless you believe the ideological depiction of this conflict promulogated in Washington and London you are in some sense the supporter of a reactionary theocratic brand of ideology derived both from Madrassa’s in Pakistan and northern India and in Saudi Arabia. So much for third campism. So much for even basic rationality or materialism.
johng said,
June 21, 2008 at 10:44 am
Whats your position on Trotsky’s quote on Brazil?
modernityblog said,
June 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm
charliethechulo,
don’t waste your breath, “the reader” or JohnG won’t be able to read what you’ve stated, let alone accurately represent it, so they are not going to be able to see the point
and even if they could see the point, they are rather crude political hacks who adjust the world according to their ideology, evidence and reasoning is largely superfluous to their understanding of the world, or in this case what a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would mean in practical terms
put simply: they don’t care, Afghanistan is a “faraway country” and if Afghan girls have to suffer for the cause of world “anti- imperialism”, so be it
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I liek the way modernity talks to people while pretending to talk about them, it’s really quite cute, what an uppitty little thing he is, nose in the air throwing a tantrum.
{put simply: they don’t care, Afghanistan is a “faraway country” and if Afghan girls have to suffer for the cause of world “anti- imperialism”, so be it}
Says a supporter of Israel. You have no credibility you apologist for genocide and friend of the pro-Mujahideen AWL. Modenrity, Israeli chauvinist flag waver.
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm
And you still can’t explain why unlike Galloway or WP or the ISO, the AWL only has support in first-world countries.
We all know who it is who sees “far away” countries as worthless, passive and pawns on an imperial chess board.
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:10 pm
charie the chulo thinks it’s insular and nationalistic to call for “bring the troops home”, what a moron, try publcialy campaigning int he British streets for victory to the Iraqi resistance, you think that’s insular or populsit somehow?
yeah, that goes down really well with the British masses charlie!
it’s very very easy to pretend to be internationalsit when you never have to say naything against your own country because there’s always someone worse abroad. The AWL are so brave and internationalist with their refusal to oppose British imperialism, the mass of the British media, the entire British Parliament, and the apparatus of the British state. Such brave challengers of insular British patriotism.
tim said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“And you still can’t explain why unlike Galloway or WP or the ISO, the AWL only has support in first-world countries.”
The financial support Galloway had from the Iraqi people may count for more if they had known they were doing it.
johng said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“We all know who it is who sees “far away” countries as worthless, passive and pawns on an imperial chess board”
I think this says it all. Whats interesting about these armchair strategists is not how completely ignorent they are of the societies they proscribe for (we all have ignorence about various things) its their utter lack of any genuine interest. Always I think a strong sign that their claims of universal philanthropy are to be taken with a pinch of salt. The dosy assumptions are dosy, but its notable that those who argue like this are not really stupid just uninterested. they really couldn’t care less about people outside their own metaphysical fantasies about the ‘progressive west’. they are identical in this sense to Stalinists.
modernityblog said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I wonder if any of the brave “anti-imperialists” could talk directly to the point:
what would happen in Afghanistan if the Taliban took over again?
tim said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm
dosy?
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Tim:
{The financial support Galloway had from the Iraqi people may count for more if they had known they were doing it.}
Very droll, but George Galloway is hugely popular int he Arab world, more than your kind will ever be.
I wouldn’t mind if you could acknowledge that fact and then integrate it into your argument, but you refuse to, and keep pretending you have some kind of deep link to these “far away” coutnries which the rest of us don’t, when in fact, the people you are criticising – WP, galloway, SWP/STWC, have sent many comrades to these coutnries and have many supporters from these coutnries. As opposed to the likes of you and mdoernity who despite your moralism *in theory*, do not *in opractice* ever take nay active interest in engaging with comrades in the coutnries you pontiifcate about. If you did, I suspect your kind wouldn’t keep putting “imperilaism” in brackets, though, you never will
In other words,w hat John G said:
{I wonder if any of the brave “anti-imperialists” could talk directly to the point:
What would happen in Afghanistan if the Taliban took over again?}
If the Taliban took over again there would be a mass slaughter and it owuld be a disaster on a par with the continued occupation of Afghanistan by the Coallition. they would also quickly come to an agreement with the imperialists.
But I don’t want the Taliban tot ake over again, I support the Afghan people’s right to unite to throw out the ocucpiers – regardless of who currently leads the resistance – and nationalise their natural resources and markets and, in line with forces like China, Venezuela and Russia, follow a course of economic nationalism to rapidly industrialise the country and raise standards of living, while wiping out the warlords and gangsters who onyl came to pwoer int he first place through the uspport of US imperialism, and who can only exist in a dominated, dependent, third-world country, and not in a coutnry with genuine control of its own resources nad markets and the ability to develop that. This is osmehting the occupeirs will never allow in Afghanistan, becuase their plan for afghanistan and Iraq is mass privatisation and looting, soemthign that can only be carried out by, and which exacerbates hte conditions which bring to pwoer, sectarian miltiias, warlords, and gangsters.
Talking about the Tlaiban talking power though, I did not support the Mujahideen int he first place, I supported the Afghan pro-Soviet secular nationalist forces back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, unlike the pro-feudal/pro-imperialist AWL. It’s sweet that your memory only beings on september 11 2001 modenrity, but unfortunately the problems you pretend to care about (or start caring abotu when they threaten your own chauvinist interests) have deeper roots than that, and if you wnat to know those roots, look to the poltiics of traitors like your mate Jim Denham.
modernityblog said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm
So there we have it, the semiliterate ramblings which suggests that if the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan “there would be a mass slaughter and it owuld be a disaster on a par with the continued occupation of Afghanistan by the Coallition.”
a disaster on a par with the continued occupation of Afghanistan?
that’s the type of moronic myopic and generally idiotic comparisons that you have, because despite the very poor situation in Afghanistan now it is considerably better than it would be under the Taliban
but faux “anti-imperialists” can hardly admit that?
what complete political idiocy and so utterly marginal to reality
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 3:01 pm
{that’s the type of moronic myopic and generally idiotic comparisons that you have, because despite the very poor situation in Afghanistan now it is considerably better than it would be under the Taliban}
No it isn’t, that’s rubbish. Where do you get this from? The country is already part controlled by the Taliban and effectively controlled by warlords and gangsters anyway, what passes for the afghan army is a sectarian militia, and the policy of the occupiers is to pit one community against another to better dominate, so you are talking rubbish. The only way out is a united mass Afghan struggle agaisnt the occupation, get it into your head that there is no viable state or liberal demcoracy being built, rather one set of gangsters is being backed against another and being nominally called the “state” by the occupiers (who themselves are war criminals).
You’re basically a bigot who thinks Afghans need benign British troops occupying so as to keep them away from each others throats. Thank god for the British and Americans eh modernity!
Also I wouldn’t be making remarks about “semi-literate” if I were you, you know, glass houses and stones.
tim said,
June 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm
reader,
I wonder how we are to judge Galloways popularity in Iraq? perhaps it’s not on his visiting schedule because of his friendship with the rapist Uday Hussein?
Or the fact that the Iraqis now know they were paying his hotel bills, and those on the Al Mada list are not welcome?
Either way,George can never visit Iraq again.
Thats how popular he is.
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 3:12 pm
{reader,
I wonder how we are to judge Galloways popularity in Iraq? perhaps it’s not on his visiting schedule because of his friendship with the rapist Uday Hussein?
Or the fact that the Iraqis now know they were paying his hotel bills, and those on the Al Mada list are not welcome?
Either way,George can never visit Iraq again.
Thats how popular he is.}
Congratulations for pointing out that he’s not going to be invited back by the occupying forces or the collaborationist government.
Regarding his popularity on the ground though, well let’s judge the popularity of the resistence who of all the pathetic British MP’s, only Galloway had the courage and honesty to put his career ont he line and defend. Judging by that, I’d say hguely popualr.
In any case I’m sure that udnerstandably most Iraqis have more pressing issues to think about than George Galloway. More interesting is the huge popualrity of Al Sadr.
Or the fact that the Iraqi Federationf of Trad eUnions called for troops out now.
And apart from Iraq, I was actually talkign about the whole Arab world, which is oprpessed by US and EU imperialism, as opposed to jsut Iraq as you seem to think.
modernityblog said,
June 21, 2008 at 3:12 pm
that’s the poor level that these detached “anti-imperialists” are reduced to, calling people traitors, bigots, etc
what a miserable existence they must have, forever active in politics and yet incapable of arguing a lucid point
constantly writing and yet incapable of communicating in a literate way
eternally “internationalist” but never capable of seeing the Afghans as people, rather they are simple pawns in some geopolitical scheme in the minds of very western “anti-imperialists”
no wonder they are angry and bitter, because their rantings are so utterly detached from reality, a bit like those religious idiots you see on Speakers Corner shouting at the top of their voices whilst people walk by with a bemused smile on their face
just waiting for them to start calling people “social-fascists”!
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 3:18 pm
{no wonder they are angry and bitter, because their rantings are so utterly detached from reality, a bit like those religious idiots you see on Speakers Corner shouting at the top of their voices whilst people walk by with a bemused smile on their face}
says the man with a blog which no-one reads, whos pends all day every day ranting about British Trotskyism.
Angry and bitter eh modernity…glass houses and stones mate.
tim said,
June 21, 2008 at 3:20 pm
yes reader.
I’m sure all those who grovelled round Uday Hussein are immensely popular “on the ground”
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 3:23 pm
{yes reader.
I’m sure all those who grovelled round Uday Hussein are immensely popular “on the ground”}
how many Iraqis did the sanctions kill? Many more than ?Uday Husseein could dream of.
how many Iraqis has the war killed? Likewise
Did George Galloway campaign against both?
You need to get out of your head the stupid paradigm of evil third world dictators oppressing their coutnry against the wishes of US/UK imperialism. The imperialsits were at the root of the destruction of Iraqi society from the beginning, and George Galloway and every single Iraqi who has died fighting occupation are heroes for resisting this.
tim said,
June 21, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Its amazing really that George doesn’t go back for a visit, to be greeted by cheering crowds.
But perhaps he should just send the cash back.
tim said,
June 21, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Reader,
Were those people with Downs Syndrome who had bombs strapped to them to blow up in a Shia marketplace, heroes?
Or those who strapped the bombs on?
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 4:15 pm
What’s that, one instance in 4 years of occupation, which hardly comapres to a decade of sanctions which killed over a million Iraqis after a bombing campaign which obliterated the country’s infrastructure? Compared to a war which has put in place a regime which trotures even more more opponents than the Baathist regime did, which is relgious rather than secular, which is sectarian rather than nationalistic, and which is attempting to force through a Wahsington/IMF/World Bank sponsored programme of looting which can only devastate Iraq like it has devastated everywhere else it’s been tried.
So ocngratulations for finding one instance of barbarity by the resistance, I’m sure you could find many more, there is barbarity on both sides in every war but it doesn’t make the war wrong.
And secondly actually it’s pathetic that you can’t distinguish between attacks on civilians and attacks on occupying troops. I don’t supprot attacks on civilians, so no, I don’t think that attack you mentionw as heroic at all, such sectarian war is int he itnerests of the imperialsits, and the US and UK are backing sectarian militias in doing that. I don’t see how you can’t grasp this.
What I do support are attacks on ocucpying troops, which is quite different to supproitng attacks on civilians, inf act it’s the exact opposite, because as you plunder a society, there are two option for thos ebeing plundered: 1.)fight each other in a heightened struggle for anever depleting set of resources as th economy is privatised or places udner sanctions, or 2.) unite to fight the ocucpiers and put aside sectarian communal rivalry in the itnerest of secualr economic nationalism.
The latter of those two is necessarry, by refusing to call for it you’re de facto supporting the continuation of the circumstances for inter-communal war, which is what happens whenever a third world country is subjected to a sustained campaign of imperialist looting.
If you don’t beleive me, then why is it that the last time Afghansitan had a movement to take control of its own resources and markets, the Mujahideen were given the full mighty support of the USA in destroying the country!? And the AWL supporoted that!
So no, supporting imperialism and supporting reactionary sectarian war and feudalistic warlords are not mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand, and every single neo-con strategist knows this, I suggest you realise this too and wake up to what has really been going o in the Middle East and Central Asia for the past 60 years.
reader said,
June 21, 2008 at 4:17 pm
{in 4 years of occupation}
oops, 5
johng said,
June 21, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Actually Tim, and you should know this, that story was a lie. Its interesting to speculate where such a story came from, who concocted it and why. The fact that most Iraqi’s think it justified to shoot coalition forces, and have done consistantly for years, and, at the same time, most Iraqi’s disaprove of the sectarin bombing campaigns of Al Qaida seems to have passed you by. Yet another example of a refusal to grapple with inconveniant realities instead of your imaginary chess board. I agree with a lot of what reader says, but must dissent from his support for the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan. The revolutionaries who seized control of Afghanistan had as their project the rapid modernisation of Afghan society, a project which initially was to be based on winning the support of the majority of the population. When they failed to do this they invited in the Soviet Union who proceeded to pulverise the whole country and turned the words ’socialism’, ‘modernity’ and ’secularism’ into a dirty word for generations of peasents millions of whom died and millions of whom lived for a generation in refugee camps which spawned the base for the taliban. Western countries are currently on precisely the same path and it will have precisely the same result. The difference is that if the various middle class revolutionaries and nationalists who dreamed of transforming their country were undoubtably motivated initially by genuine idealism nothing of the kind can be said for the western coalition, who represent nothing but the basest and most stupid self interest. They are making a disaster in Afghanistan and it is a bloody cheek for so-called ‘third campists’ to place the blame for the coming disaster on those who have opposed this futile and bloody excercise from the beginning. There is no solution to Afghan’s tragedy through foreign occupation, a fact closely related to social realities inside Afghanistan itself, a country whose history is a catalogue of the endless disaster and tragedy wrought by foreign occupation, down from the time of the British.
tim said,
June 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm
You are right JohnG.
The US Army revealed that the women had been treated for Schizophrenia, but that there was no evidence of Downs Syndrome.
I stand corrected.
Although there are other cases.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Iraq/Down-syndrome-youth-used-as-suicide-bomber/2005/02/01/1107228703372.html
Thankfully the attacks on civilians and on coalition forces have declined rapidly in the last few months.
charliethechulo said,
June 21, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Amazing, isn’t it, that Jim suggested sections of the “left” are soft on the Taliban and Islamo-fascism, and people like John ‘G’ and ‘reader’ get so worked up, denying the truth of such an outrageous contention…then demonstrate that they are, indeed, soft on Islamo-fascism.
Andrew Coates said,
June 22, 2008 at 10:33 am
And Charliethechulo that we ‘pabloites’ are soft on this is well, plain pissing in the void. As someone who is actually a ‘Pabloite’ in the sense of being close to the Tendance Marxiste Revolutionnaire, and participating in their World Congress, whilst they still existed in the eighties, I would humbly suggest that the experience of our lot who lived in Algeria, being suppressed, first by the FLN, and then, our beloved comrades being murdered by the GIA, would give an inkling of our stand on these issues. For those who want to know what the last Pabloites think Google, Utopie-Critique. Mind you you will have to know French.
As for Jeremy’s stand, I think it’s pure politician’s speak. He is a very very decent bloke and it annoys me that anyone can make cheap points at his expense. He rightly points out the mess in the country. That is his main point.
I am more concerned that he has not come out in support of HOPI, and the imovement he is associated (LIberation, formerly the Movement for Colonial Freedom) has not either.
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Andy: as it happens, I agree with you that *real* Pabloities (like yourself) are generally a lot better than the degenerates of the SWP and (come to that), the ex-WRP off-shoots who claim to be “anti-Pabloite” but, in reality, commit all the sins (real and alleged) of Pabloism without having any of that traditions political coherence and rigour. I admit that I tend to use the term as a bit of knockabout gratuituous abuse. I will cease.
reader said,
June 22, 2008 at 4:33 pm
{Amazing, isn’t it, that Jim suggested sections of the “left” are soft on the Taliban and Islamo-fascism, and people like John ‘G’ and ‘reader’ get so worked up, denying the truth of such an outrageous contention…then demonstrate that they are, indeed, soft on Islamo-fascism.}
I’m not worked up about the suggestion of being soft on “Islamofascism”, I’ll leave that kind of chest-beating to British chauvinsits like yourself. I’m arguing with the stupid idea that “Islamofascism” is anywhere as big a threat to humanity as US imperialism.
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Ah! the SWP/liberal objection to any suggestion that Islamism can properly be compared to nazism / US imperialism: “the Nazis / Yanks seriously threatened (threaten) to conquer the world; the Isamists are nowhere near as strong, and to compare the two is ridiculous”
OK: let’s analyse that proposition:
!/ Political Islamists (and not just al-Qaeda) *do* have as their programme, world domination in the form of the “caliphate” or “ummah”;
2/ Whether or not the Islamo-fascist are likely to achieve this goal is an open question, but I’d agree it’s not likely in the foreseeable future: but then, neither is the destruction of humanity through climate change;
3/ The old SWP/ Respect/ Seamas Milne argument that Islamofascism is not “as strong” as Nazism and/or US imperialism, and therefore, we don’t need to worry about it, is simply a cop-out in political terms. We judge movements by their politics/ideology , and fascist movements by how reactionary they are – not by how strong they are. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be particularly bothered by th BNP, would we?
So I ask you, “reader”: are UAF and “Searchlight” simply wasting their time? And what do you have to say about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7464736.stm
Kind of fucks up your apologetics for Islamism, doesn’t it?
P.S: I don’t know whether you’ve read Ed Husain’s book “The Islamist”, but if not, you really ought to. It’s especially good on the political Islamists’ attitude to “imperialism”: they’re not against it in principle, but are angry that *they* are not the imperialists…
The’”left” as represented by idiots like John G and reader, needs to get its head round that.
tim said,
June 22, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Reader,
If you were a secular Muslim, say Turkish, who do you think poses the bigger thret to your lifestyle.
The US or Right wing Islamism?
reader said,
June 22, 2008 at 8:37 pm
{Reader,
If you were a secular Muslim, say Turkish, who do you think poses the bigger thret to your lifestyle.
The US or Right wing Islamism?}
Like most turkish communsits, I would say US and EU imperialism.
Charliechulo: I don’t share your definition of fascism. The BNP is a wing of British imeprialism, not a petty-bourgeois anti-capitalist phenomenon. Regarding “Islamofascism”, it’s a symptom of US domination of the Middle East and Central Asia. I don’t “apologise” for it I just don’t buy the smokescreen that “we” are “fighting Islamofascism” when in reality the US and UK imperialists arm and pay different Islamist walords to kill civilians and keep order and then fires ont hem whenever they challenge imperialist domination in a way that would hinder the looting of their country and therefore help improve the material basis of that society and undermine the impoverishing tendencies of imperialism which create the conditions for sectarian “islamism” to thrive. Read the thread in other words.
By the way you keep ignoring the fact that the AWL supported the Mujahideen, not me. You’re a joke of the global left and a disgrace to all British communsits that we’ve spawned such an organisation.
reader said,
June 22, 2008 at 8:41 pm
and by the way Tim your phrasing betrays your liberal politics, that it’s all about “lifestyle”. It’s not a question of defending our “civilised” lifestyle I, like my comrades in Turkey, am intterested in the eamncipation of the working class fom economic slavery so that we may confiscate all private property and collectivise the economy. See. Nothing about “defending our ‘lifestyle’”.
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 8:50 pm
reader:
you started out by claiming that the AWL supported the taliban: you have now backed down and attempted to cover your tracks by changing your references to the Taliban to the Mujahideen, a somewhat different matter. now, I’m quite prepared to debate you on the question of the Mujahideen, but first: let’s have your correction and apology over your claim that the AWL *ever* supported the Taliban, please.
As for your definition of fascism: well, you don’t really have one, do you? Except to claim (fatuously) that the “BNP is a wing of British imperialism”…oohmygawd …denial, denial, denial…
You need a reality check, reader. No wonder sensible people don’t take the present-day “left” seriously.
tim said,
June 22, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I think the Iranian Communists circa 1979 saw US imperialism as a bigger threat than Right wing Islamism too.
Jules said,
June 22, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Given that the BNP are committed to the tearing up of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to keep Northern Ireland under British rule perpetually I think the description of them as a wing of British Imperialism is not inaccurate.
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:02 pm
..which just goes to show, Jules, that you haven’t the most elementary understanding of what imperialism is, or how it operates,
Jules said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:09 pm
In other words I don’t use it in the sense that Lenin did, a theory I think has been disproven. I used it in the sense that most people who use the term do – i.e the political, economic or military domination of one country by another. Charlie goes ballistic at this – revealing why trot sects are in the dismal state they deserve to be in.
reader said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:19 pm
{you started out by claiming that the AWL supported the taliban: you have now backed down and attempted to cover your tracks by changing your references to the Taliban to the Mujahideen, a somewhat different matter. now, I’m quite prepared to debate you on the question of the Mujahideen, but first: let’s have your correction and apology over your claim that the AWL *ever* supported the Taliban, please.}
When Jim Denham apologises for saying that WP and George Galloway sympathise with the Taliban, I will.
Until then, no.
And actually if you go back and read the thread it;s quite clear that the AWL cheered for CIA sponsored, Saudi-led terrorists as they destroyed an entire society in the name of overthrowing an economic nationalist secualr third world government.
And now when those same imperialiists want to unleash another round of penetration of the kind which devastated the country in the first place, and face resistance from the regime and popular resistance, you then decide you don’t like “Islamofascism” and that the imperialist looters have a progressive role to play as they steal the coutnries resources and further dominate its markets. Disgraceful and anti-materialist, showing you have no clue about the material roots of dictatorships in the semi-colonial world.
{I think the Iranian Communists circa 1979 saw US imperialism as a bigger threat than Right wing Islamism too.}
They did yes, and many still correctly do despite the current regime’s repression and despite their hatred of the regime (or apaprently people who lost comrades and family members and who today still labour under the regime or whose families do are also apologists for the Iranian regime)
Of course when middle class western-looking people start getting oppressed too, then you and your ilk sit up and notice Tim. Unfortunately for most Iranian workers however, the evils of US imeprialism were quite clear under the days of the US implemented Shah regime, and still remain fresh in the memory, and it’s therefore clear that US imperialism is at the root of Iran’s oppression and the oppression of every country in the region.
Start sounding lik you get your information on the Middle East and Central Asia from anywhere other than US foreign policy declarations and embittered, urbane, anti-national petit-bourgeois liberal exiles who long for the golden days of the Shah, and maybe you’ll start to have some impact.
You probably also think that rich white liebral Venezuelans are heroic defenders of demcoracy. Or Cuban “exiles”. etc.
{which just goes to show, Jules, that you haven’t the most elementary understanding of what imperialism is, or how it operates,}
Oh I think he does, as did VI Lenin, whose corect theory you have apparently discarded.
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Jules: do you *seriously” think the BNP are a “wing of British imperialism”? Seriously? think about your answer for a moment before making your little tiny contribution to why the British left look like fucking idiots to most sensible people…and don’t make a fucking idjet of yourself: Please, Jules.
Jules said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Charlie – you’re the one making an idiot of yourself with such self righteous, arrogant responses. have another go, this time addressing what I wrote.
reader said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:24 pm
{In other words I don’t use it in the sense that Lenin did, a theory I think has been disproven. I used it in the sense that most people who use the term do – i.e the political, economic or military domination of one country by another. Charlie goes ballistic at this – revealing why trot sects are in the dismal state they deserve to be in.}
Ironically, the AWL do not accept Lenin’s theory of imeprialism, and judging by his poltiics, I very much doubt Charlie does.
In fact the BNP are imperialist precisely because Britain is an exporter of capital, and the BNP represents a wing of the British bourgeoisie and therefore will never oppose imperialism any more than the Nazis ended German imperialism or Mussolini ended Italian imperialism.
This is why the Soviet Union in Afganistanw as not imeprialist, because the SU did not export capital, rather it was defending a government which wanted to oppose the domination of its markets by imperialist capital.
tim said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Reader,
I just think that those western leftists who acted as apologists for the Ayatollahs were short sighted fuck ups.
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Jules:
get a grip, man. When was the last time that the BNP exported capital? And give me one single, solitary example of the British bourgeoisie supporting the BNP???
You’re living in a fantasy world, comrade!
And a dangerous fantasy world, because if the Nazis ever did become a serious threat in Britain, your crying wolf might have demobilised people.
And yet you vigorously deny the idea that political Islam is a form of fascism that *does* present a threat to the safety and wellbeing of working class people in Britain today. I’d have thought that proposition was a self-obvious no-brainer.
P.S: Marx described the Romans as “imperialists”: did they export capital?
Jules said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Reader, I think Lenin’s theory said more than that. If imperialist countries are those that export capital then that means that most countries today are imperialist, including Iraq prior to the war. At any rate I think Lenin’s theory meant more than that – it was about how the capitalist countries competed with each other and the entry into a final stage of capitalism -a period in which no reforms could be offered the working class, or in which there was no room for expansion. Almost a hundred years on I think we can see that this theory has not been borne out by the facts, but no doubt Charlie will come along to lecture me on how I’m wrong in every possible way but not explain why.
Jules said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Charlie, you appear to be conflating mine and readers posts which isn’t helping things here.
But yes I think the BNP are a bourgeois political party – fascism is a bourgeois ideology dontcha know? Even Trotsky said it and stuff. As such the BNP are a pro-imperialist party – also a common trait among fascists dontcha know. Their stance on Ireland is an imperialist stance as I’ve already stated.
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:43 pm
The BNP (simply) a “bourgeois party”?
…and when did they last export capital?
,,,and when did they last support the majority bourgeois line on the EU?
Yes, fascism is a potential option for the bourgeoisie, in extreme circumstances; but at the moment?
Are you serious, comrade?
Jules said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Oh for fucks sake!
reader said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Tim: what about western leftists who supproted the Mujahideen?
If you showed some consistency then maybe there oculd be a debate, as it is you’re coming across like a knee-jerk anti anti-imperialist.
{get a grip, man. When was the last time that the BNP exported capital?}
The BNP is a wing of the British bourgeoisie, an imeprialist borugeoisie. Next you’ll be telling me the Lib Dems aren’t imperialist because they don’t export capital. Obviosuly, most bourgeosiie have parties outside of power, to psoe as a false alternative.
{And give me one single, solitary example of the British bourgeoisie supporting the BNP???}
The BNP is bourgeois, fascism is the rearguard of the bourgeosiie. Obviously since the BNP came into existence, the British borugeosiie has not had to resort to fascism, ebcause they haven’t entered a seriosu enough crisis.
I can give you examples of the British borugeoisie supproting fascism though, yes. Daily Mail and Oswald Mosely anyone?
{{And yet you vigorously deny the idea that political Islam is a form of fascism that *does* present a threat to the safety and wellbeing of working class people in Britain today. I’d have thought that proposition was a self-obvious no-brainer.}
It’s not about whether it’s a threat, it’s about whether it’s fascism. I don’t think there is such a thing as “Islamofascism”, I think there are different sectarian wars between communities all across the third world due to the artificial scarcity created by the imperialist mode of production.
Obviosuly all those who propose these sectarian forms of warfare within the masses of third world socieities are a threat and a danger and do the bidding of imeprialism, as I said laready int his thread, I do not support any attacks on civilians in Afghanistan on Iraq.
However as a mateirlaist, when any section of an oppressed antion resists the imperialist domiantion fo their nation which is at the root of the backwardness of their society, I support them critically but unconditionally. So therefore any resistance to the 100% negative presence of coallition troops ina fghansitan or Iraq must be supported.
I already said that the Taliban coming to power would be a disaster anyway so don’t be twisting my words, you obviosuly haven’t read the thread and are just making up what’s convenient for you.
{P.S: Marx described the Romans as “imperialists”: did they export capital?}
He also talked baout primitive “communism”. In a capitalist world, imperialism is the export of capital, each mode of production had its own form of imeprialism.
I think it’s fairly obvious that we aren’t going to slip into a pre-capitalist mode of productiona gain, so, imperialism now is the export of capital, obviously, this is the logical outcome of the dynamics of the capitalist system.
modernity said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:55 pm
fascinating discussion, angels, head of pins
I wonder if Jules and the reader think that China’s activities in Tibet are imperialist? or not??
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 9:57 pm
reader:
“I do not think there is such thing as ‘Islamofascism’:
in denial, as usual.
Have a look at this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7464736.stm
Then give me your comments.
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 10:21 pm
reader: I note that you’ve backed off every single challenge, whether it be the Romans exporting capital, the BNP representing the British bourgeoisie, or the possibility of the existance of Islamofascism…when are we going to get a straight answer from you? Or will you just continue to evade, prevaricate…and..bullshit, in order to avoid coming to terms with the obvious bankruptcy of your semi-Stalinist ideology?
reader said,
June 22, 2008 at 10:23 pm
{fascinating discussion, angels, head of pins
I wonder if Jules and the reader think that China’s activities in Tibet are imperialist? or not??}
I think Tibet should have self-determination, Tibetans should have equal rights to speak their own language as Han Chinese do, and I think that it’s undoubtable that if you send settlers to a region to take it over and change its composition, and create basically an apartheid system, then you will have resistance, so despite the totally reactionary poltiics of the Tibetan nation at this time, I do critically support the movement.
But I don’t think China is yet an imperialist country, it might become one or it might not we will have to see how the economic crisis pans out.
reader said,
June 22, 2008 at 10:26 pm
{so despite the totally reactionary poltiics of the Tibetan nation at this time, }
oops, I meant the *leadership* of the Tibetan nation.
charliethechulo said,
June 22, 2008 at 11:06 pm
No, reader: I think your first version represents your true, Stalinist, emniity towards the Tibetan *nation*
…A Freudian slip…
modernity said,
June 22, 2008 at 11:25 pm
“But I don’t think China is yet an imperialist country, it might become one or it might not we will have to see how the economic crisis pans out.”
So there we have it, reality versus ideology, and reality loses
According to “the reader” China is not yet in imperialist country, but let’s look at the facts:
China invades Tibet in the late 1950s
China deposes Tibetan rulers
much later on China moves in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of settlers into Tibet
China controls Tibet via the Party Secretary (proconsul)
the Chinese ruling class enforce their rule by military means
the Chinese ruling class enforce their language and culture onto Tibetans
Tibetans are forced to learn the ruler’s language if they wish to gain a good job
any opposition is crushed with brutal force by the Chinese State Security apparatus
the Tibetan countryside is ruthlessly mined for raw materials, costing the Chinese state nothing
So there you have it, the forced takeover of a neighbouring country, economic exploitation, military suppression of dissent, single party rule from Beijing, and the likes of “the reader” would have us believe that is not imperialism?
why is that?
If the Germans or the French had taken over Tibet and done exactly as the Chinese have done, then “the reader” and his comrades would be screaming “imperialism!” at the top of their voices, yet somehow we are meant to believe because the Chinese ruling class did it, it isn’t imperialism?
Why?
reader said,
June 23, 2008 at 4:45 pm
{No, reader: I think your first version represents your true, Stalinist, emniity towards the Tibetan *nation*
…A Freudian slip…}
You’re very unforgiving of other people’s errors considering the highly embarrassing hysterical comment you posted to me and then deleted.
I was good enough to let it go however.
Though, it did show up your true inability to read other people’s posts carefully.
modernityblog said,
June 23, 2008 at 6:40 pm
so reader, please explain why if Germany (or France) had invaded Tibet and done what China has done since the 1950s that would be imperialism?
and yet if China invades a neighbouring country, Tibet, etc and that isn’t imperialism?
why?
reader said,
June 24, 2008 at 1:29 pm
{so reader, please explain why if Germany (or France) had invaded Tibet and done what China has done since the 1950s that would be imperialism?
and yet if China invades a neighbouring country, Tibet, etc and that isn’t imperialism?
why?}
I don’t think that in itself would be imperialism.
I don’t think imeprialism is an ideolgoy or an intention or a way of thinking, I think it’s an epoch of capitalism where a small number of states or blocs survive by dumping capital en masse onto semicolonies. Obviosuly this goes hand in hand with miltiarism but it’s not the same thing, Switzerland doesn’t occupy anyone, but it’s imeprialist due to its [osition int he global economic system…of coruse it couldn’t acheive this without the miltiary might of the EU bloc which it’s part of, but you get my point, a state can be imeprialist without occupying nayone.
Likewise China I don’t think is yet an imperialist country, though of ocurse it’s breaking into markets in Africa and Latin America, I think it’s still in transition because it’s still economically subordinate to western capital IMO.
So to answer your quesiton, france and germany re imeprialist whether or not they occupy Tibet. Their position in regards to Iraq is imeprialist, yet they opposed this particular invasion.
modernity said,
June 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm
so according to the reader, invading neighbouring countries, imposing rulers, committing cultural destruction, raping the countryside of raw materials and forcibly suppressing the people is not imperialism? (when China does it)
amazing, god, to think he had a university education?
that’s a fairly basic situation political situation in Tibet and he’s incapable of rendering it logically and accurately, sad really, poor man.
reader said,
June 24, 2008 at 9:37 pm
So modernity apparently you think anyone who exploits anyone else’s labour is part of the bourgeoisie, after all some small businesses pay even lower wages than multinationals.
I don’t know what you’re going on about unviersity by the way, are you under the impressionw e know each other? I can thankfully assure you we don’t.
modernityblog said,
June 24, 2008 at 10:53 pm
reader, my point about University was to ascertain if you had studied either logic or argumentation whilst there ?
either being the case you should have been able to answer why China isn’t imperialist when it invades Tibet simply but instead you repeat an assertion
I am not a graduate, just an autodidactic member of the underclasses but at least I’m familiar with evidential reasoning which goes something like this
“I think China is not imperialist, because…”
and then you would list the reasons, logically, without circular argumentation or self reference
that’s what I’m trying to get you to do, to spell out your arguments, you were bold enough to state that “China I don’t think is yet an imperialist country”, but without detailing your particular reasoning on the matter (hint: repeating assertions is not the same as arguing a point)
so if you can manage to think up of a few reasons as to why China isn’t yet an imperialist country in your view, then I would like to hear it
reader said,
June 25, 2008 at 2:41 am
oh ok, you want my socialist credentials. well there’s not really much point on a blog, we will never meet and your opinion of me has no consequence. all I can say is I know I’ve earned the right to say the things I say due to the life I’ve lived – and I’m critical of those that ask people to do things they wouldn’t do, or talk about situations they don’t udnerstand, I don’t count myself as one of them. whether or not you want to keep doubting that isn’t my problem, I simply don’t want this to become a conversation where we tell each other our life stories, as that would be a waste of time when all I really want to do is counter third campist myths.
so anyway: I don’t think China is imperialist because it is not a *net* exporter of capital and it’s position in the global economy is that it is exploited by Japan, the USA and the EU, and their use of China as a dumping ground for their capital. The largest corporations profiting out of China aren’t Chinese, and the Chinese economy is cramped by the penetration of imperialist capital which keeps the economy from developing to the point where workers can earn the rights we have in the west. So therefore, any resistance byt he Cinese borugeoisie to imeprialism is progressive and it’s important to acknowledge that China is oppressed by the global economic structure, and that further domination by imperialist capital would be a disaster for the living standards of Chinese workers.
modernityblog said,
June 25, 2008 at 1:50 pm
No reader, again you misread
I don’t want your “socialist credentials” I merely wanted you to put a cogent argument
a stream of consciousness maybe very satisfactory from your point of view but it doesn’t make good reading on these issues
so the gist of your argument is that China isn’t imperialist “because it is not a *net* exporter of capital and it’s position in the global economy”, etc
very interesting, how does that fit in historically? if we looked back say at American history in the late 19th century, early 20th century, would it have been a net exporter of capital? thus not imperialist?
I’m sure many Latin Americans would disagree with that, if that’s how we extrapolate it?
again what about China’s activities in Africa? exporting capital? raw materials? at what point does a country cease to be non-imperialist and become an imperialist using the above criteria? and is it too literalistic (like a mathematical equation) ?
but it strikes me as strange that the material actions of a nationstate, the invasion of another country, installation of foreign leadership, military occupation, exploitation of raw materials don’t count as imperialist?
I’m hazarding a guess here, but I suspect in terms of Tibet (based on the reader’s criteria) that China is a net exporter of capital? and thus in terms of that country, imperialist?
reader said,
June 26, 2008 at 9:51 pm
{very interesting, how does that fit in historically? if we looked back say at American history in the late 19th century, early 20th century, would it have been a net exporter of capital? thus not imperialist?}
I don’t know if it was imeprialist. It could well have been a regional power with imeprial ambitions. I don’t actually know the history of the US at the time, but I certainly don’t think it has always been imeprialist. The genocide agaiinst the native Americans and “manifest destiny” and then the interference in Latin America and the Phillipinnes wouldn’t make them imeprialist in Leninsit terms necessarilly, in and of themselves.
However I am not saying it wasn’t, because I don’t know.
{again what about China’s activities in Africa? exporting capital? raw materials? at what point does a country cease to be non-imperialist and become an imperialist using the above criteria? and is it too literalistic (like a mathematical equation)?}
This is a good point, I did say originally “China is not imeprialsit *yet*”. It looks on a course to becomign an imeprialist pwoer, but I don’t think it is one yet. You are welcome to think so, but then you should realise that by your logic Serbia, Iraq and Israel, among others, would also be imperialist.
{but it strikes me as strange that the material actions of a nationstate, the invasion of another country, installation of foreign leadership, military occupation, exploitation of raw materials don’t count as imperialist?}
This is the case if you think that by not calling it imperilaist someone is excusing or supproting it. But this isn’t the case, I’m using the word imeprialism to mean an economic system and not an ideology or an issue of conquest and colonisation.
{I’m hazarding a guess here, but I suspect in terms of Tibet (based on the reader’s criteria) that China is a net exporter of capital? and thus in terms of that country, imperialist?}
I’m sure you’re right that China exports capital to Tibet, but the word “imperialist”, if being used in the context of a global economic system, is surely not a nebulous relative term which you can use regarding one country’s behaviour towards one but not another, but rather an absolute classification.
For example, if I’m exploited by a small shopkeeper, his relationship towards me is one of someone who owns the means of production to someone hwo doesn’t, but, that doesn’t make him bourgeois, because there is a wider reality that we both exist in.
Likewise China nad Tibet are both subordinate to the capital of the imeprialsit pwoers, and to ignore that is to ignore an imprtant factor of their relationship.
reader said,
June 26, 2008 at 9:55 pm
oh dear, it looks as if I misspelt the word “imperialist” every single times.
undiagnosed dyspraxia is one of the reasons I didn’t go to university when I was younger I guess. :p though I’m actualy a mature student now, FWIW. my dad was of your generation modernity, a very clever man, but he never got to go either, and was always wistful of that fact. he was a trade unionist too and very opinionated, you’d have liked him.
modernityblog said,
June 26, 2008 at 11:03 pm
[spelling mistakes, dyspraxia or dyslexia don't need to be an excuse, here's the answer: install Firefox then go get a British (or American) dictionary for free, it will highlight any mistyped words, see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:3 ]
you wrote:
“wouldn’t make them imeprialist in Leninsit terms necessarilly, in and of themselves.” and “but the word “imperialist”, if being used in the context of a global economic system, is surely not a nebulous relative term which you can use regarding one country’s behaviour towards one but not another, but rather an absolute classification.”
so essentially you are using Leninist terminology and method
now there is obviously more than one problem with that, not everyone is a Leninist nor do they agree with that specific usage, do they?
but let’s pass over that for a minute
let’s look at this theory once a country becomes a net exporter of capital (according to my reading what you said, but correct me if I’m wrong) that country can be classified as “imperialist”??
but suppose the country isn’t yet, a full net exporter of capital? and despite what it might do concerning the rape of other countries, the exploitation of peasants workers, invasions, etc it wouldn’t be classified as imperialist based on the above?
so suppose if, for example, a particular country is close to being a net exporter, but not quite, say 2% of overall capital short, then it won’t be classified as an imperialist country?
doesn’t that seem slightly ridiculous? where such judgements are left purely to a mathematical calculation?
CoafetedCow said,
December 12, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Hi!
My name is Jessika!