Matgamna on “The poverty of anti-imperialism”
In this time when the so-caled “left” can align itself with Iran and/or China (yes: naked capitalism without even the protection for workers that bourgeois democracy allows), and identify with the clerical fascists of Hamas ( (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah), and Hezbollah: Sean Matgamna continues what will be, in future, recognised as a crucial contribution to the Marxist analysis of modern history and our own role (as leftists) in it.
Matgamna’s latest instalment is, quite simply, a Marxist masterpiece. The section on Algeria and the trade union movement/MNA is particularly important, and (as far as I know) has never been discussed -even in closed “democratic centralist” quarters - before, anywhere:
“Messali was understood to have had links with the early Communist International and had support in the Algerian trade union movement and among Algerian trade unionists in France. The International Socialist League (Shachtman); the Cannon segment of the split orthodox Trotskyist world movement, including the Lambertists in France; the SWP’s predecessor Socialist Review, and Healy’s group in Britain, which published a pamphlet with a portrait of Messali Hadj on the cover – they all backed Messali, against the more recently emerged and formally more right-wing and initially purely nationalist FLN.
“For some of them, Messali was their substitute for a Communist Party – and for the Stalinists who had already made “deformed” “socialist” revolutions in Yugoslavia, China and North Vietnam.
“The Pablo-Mandel orthodox Trotskyists backed the other nationalist organisation, the FLN, the eventual rulers of Algeria.
“It became known that the MNA was putting up much less of a fight than the FLN, and eventually, around 1958, that in some areas it had arrangements of coexistence with the occupying French forces. There are perhaps parallels with the rival anti-German forces in early-1940s Yugoslavia, Stalinist and Chetnik-Royalist, and with the two IRAs of the 1970s, the Stalinist led “Official Republicans” and the initially right-wing breakaway, the “Provisional IRA”.
“In the polemical war between the different Trotskyists, the Pablo-Mandel group eventually won hands down against the champions of the MNA and Messali. I know of no balance sheet drawn up by any of the champions of Messali and the MNA.
“The anti-imperialist politics that seemed to triumph then, of unconditional solidarity with those leading the anti-imperialist fight irrespective of politics, dominated the left thereafter. This experience was fed into the anti Vietnam war movement by Trotskyist groups influenced greatly by their experience over Algeria, and by the IS organisation, the future SWP-UK .”
Read the rest of Matgamna’s article, here
FlyingRodent said,
November 9, 2010 at 8:13 am
In this time when bloggers can extrapolate a broad left-wing movement backing Iran, China and Hamas out of a tiny number of tossers who also happen to have blogs, you’ll know that you’re dealing with an argument that has been plucked from the speaker’s behind for rhetorical purposes.
Matgamna’s latest instalment may or may not be a Marxist masterpiece, but we can be reasonably sure that any argument commencing from such a blatantly false premise probably isn’t being made in good faith.
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 9:30 am
There may not be a broad left wing movement that supports Hamas, China and Iran (depending on what work that ‘broad’ is doing) but it is irrefutable that significant parts of the left in the UK have gone down that dismal path. The Stop The War movement was dominated in its leadership by pro-Hamas and Hezbollah elements, for example, the SWP publishes eulogies to the Iranian leadership and celebrations of violence against protesters on its blogs and people like Andy Newman support police violence against ethnic minorities in China and the suppression of Iranian unions. But even among the less politically active there is often a strongly pro-Hamas, antisemitic strainpresent in movements against Israel, for example. The campaign to persecute Jewish academics had quite wide support among some very mainstream leftish people, for example, even yourself, I think, Rodent.
FlyingRodent said,
November 9, 2010 at 10:05 am
it is irrefutable that significant parts of the left in the UK have gone down that dismal path
That word, “irrefutable”, is not one I’d use in relation to the assertion that the SWP and Andy Newman represent “significant parts of the left”. It’s even more tenuous if you’re saying there is “significant” support for Hamas and Hezbollah in the UK, and devolves to the level of hilarious bathos when you start wibbling about a “campaign to persecute Jewish academics”.
Two blokes, a dog and a website do not a broad-based movement make; active support for Islamist terrorist groups in Britain is vanishingly small, and the presentation of a – in my opinion, misguided – attempt to organise a boycott of Israel within the boycotters’ profession as “persecution of Jews” is wilfully dishonest.
Bluntly, these aren’t the arguments of enlightened truth-seekers.
skidmarx said,
November 9, 2010 at 10:08 am
3John Meredith – everything you say here has an element of crap to it. The SWP, and its most popular blogger were opposed to the crushing of the democracy movement in Iran, he may have allowed opposing views, but then isn’t a totalitarian (despite his slogan “Everyone is banned”), supporting resistance to Israel is not identical with anti-semitism, and to characterise the call for an academic boycott of Israel as a “campaign to persecute Jewish academics” is pernicious (and yet again cheapens the threat from actual Nazism and anti-semitism).
martin ohr said,
November 9, 2010 at 10:31 am
…yawn. Can we move any debate about the merits or otherwise of an academic boycott of Israel to the correct thread- there’s probably more than enough keystrokes expended on that within this site already though.
Any thoughts on Matgamna’s article?
To pick on just the SWP for a minute, I’ve sensed of a creeping posthumous support for the FLN over the last 25 years, but I’ve always attributed this to the paucity of SWP cadre education rather than a concious or even subconcious re-assesment of politics.
Mike Killingworth said,
November 9, 2010 at 10:36 am
I lool forward to reading, in the next part of his article, what (apart from European unity – I wonder where he thinks the boundary of Europe is?) Matgamma is in favour of.
It would have been helpful if he had given some kind of an account as to why the various “deformations” enjoyed the popularity they did. But perhaps that also is deferred to Part II
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 10:39 am
“That word, “irrefutable”, is not one I’d use in relation to the assertion that the SWP and Andy Newman represent “significant parts of the left”.”
You needn’t, because my point was that the STW movement represented a significant part of the left together with these small extreme groupings and that part of the left marched behind a leadership that explicitly supported Hamas and Hezbollah.
“attempt to organise a boycott of Israel within the boycotters’ profession as “persecution of Jews” is wilfully dishonest”
Of course you refuse to see antisemitism in it, but you might nonetheless recognise that most Jews do see the campaign to persecute Jewish academics as antisemitic.
FlyingRodent said,
November 9, 2010 at 12:05 pm
You needn’t, because my point was that the STW movement represented a significant part of the left together with these small extreme groupings and that part of the left marched behind a leadership that explicitly supported Hamas and Hezbollah.
I suggest that this is an extremely weak basis for claims that “the so-called left aligns itself with… Iran, China (and) Hamas”, and other equally ridiculous assertions. If this is the premise of an argument, then that argument is, inevitably, going to be nonsensical. After all, you can’t build a skyscraper on a mountain of bullshit.
The argument is so transparently weak, in fact, that I consider it a public duty to assume bad faith on the part of anyone making it, and advise everyone else to do the same.
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 12:18 pm
“I suggest that this is an extremely weak basis for claims that “the so-called left aligns itself with… Iran, China (and) Hamas”,”
That isn’t the claim being made and your insistence on ignoring the actual claim to tilt at this windmill of your own makes your whining about ‘bad faith’ come across as a bit ironic.
The claim is that a ‘significant part’ of the left in the UK has aligned itself with these organisations and unless you do not consider the STW marches to represent a significant part of the left in the UK, I think that is irrefutable since the leadership of the STW is pro-Hamas/Hezbollah and includes or has included elements who also support the Chinese Communist Part and the Iranian government . That is not, obviously, to say that the entire UK left is pro-Hamas, but even centre leftists are sometimes very unwilling to criticise Hamas or Hezbollah or to admit that they are ultra-reactionary movements so the claim does not, on the face of it, seem preposterous.
FlyingRodent said,
November 9, 2010 at 12:29 pm
The claim is that a ‘significant part’ of the left in the UK has aligned itself with these organisations and unless you do not consider the STW marches to represent a significant part of the left in the UK, I think that is irrefutable and so on and so forth…
The problem isn’t that anti-war marchers etc. don’t represent “a significant part of the left”, John. They do.
The problem is that presuming anti-war sentiment = support for the Chinese Communist Party and Hamas via seven degrees of separation from George Galloway is utterly, hilariously, jaw-droppingly retarded and deranged.
It’s cretinous. It’s a non-argument. Anyone making it might as well do so with sausages up their nostrils, for all that they deserve to be taken seriously.
That is not, obviously, to say that the entire UK left is pro-Hamas…
Your real British left, folks,,, Gracious to a fault. Give ‘em a big hand – even their dimmer bulbs know when to rein in the bullshit a little bit.
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 12:39 pm
“The problem is that presuming anti-war sentiment = support for the Chinese Communist Party and Hamas via seven degrees of separation from George Galloway is utterly, hilariously, jaw-droppingly retarded and deranged.”
This part of the left attached itself to a movement that was explicitly pro-Hamas and Hezbollah. The ‘but people of the left just don’t understand complicated politics’ defence seems a little patronising to say the least. Its not like the political affiliations of the leadership were not pointed out loudly and at length. Let’s not forget ‘we are all Hezbollah’ either or Mary Beard and other in prestigious publications like the LRB telling us that the dead of 9/11 had it coming. Not everyone, but a significant element.
Mike Killingworth said,
November 9, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Isn’t it in the nature of direct action – marches, strikes, whatever – that “groupuscules” try to capture them in the name of their own peculiar understanding of revolutionary socialism? The preconditions for socialist revolution have only existed in what is today western Europe on one occasion – immediately after World War II. What else was Marshall Aid all about? This of course does not stop the groupuscules from ignoring the lesson of history whilst simultaneously declaring it to be fundamental to any socialist analysis.
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“Isn’t it in the nature of direct action – marches, strikes, whatever – that “groupuscules” try to capture them in the name of their own peculiar understanding of revolutionary socialism? ”
Of course, but we usually detach ourselves from them when those groupuscules are overtly fascistic or ultra-reactionary. It is unlikely that people like Rodent would have marched if the STW leadership had included the BNP, say, or the KKK or organisations that explicitly were affiliated to them or supported them. Why? Because they would have seen their marching as endorsing the politics of those organisations. But they did march behind organisations who were loud supporters of organisations that seek and achieve the political murder of Jews. Not because they were actually seeking that outcome, but, I guess, because they just didn’t mind it very much. And I think that is why people like Rodent will just not admit that there is an issue here: they just can’t imagine why anyone would care that an organisation calls for and pursues the killing of Jews, they don’t want this to happen, of course, they wouldn’t actually pursue it themselves, but they can’t think it matters much if others that they are marching behind do, not when there is a war to be opposed!
FlyingRodent said,
November 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Sorry John, you’ll have to say that again. I couldn’t understand you with those bangers up your hooter. I think you were implying a linkage between Islamic terrorist groups and anti-war sentiment via a string of extremely dubious, unconvincing and suspiciously self-serving arguments, but it’s difficult to tell.
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Rodent, you are unlikely to ear much with your fingers jammed so firmly in your ears but here it is one more time just in case: you marched behind a leadership that was overtly pro-Hamas, in other words a political movement that endorsed the politics of a genocidally antisemitic organisation. You would not have marched behind an organisation similarly affiliated to the KKK because you will admit that that would have implied endorsing the racist politics of the Klan. I am sure you can work out the logical steps between those two sets of facts, given enough time. Go get your crayons and have a try.
entdinglichung said,
November 9, 2010 at 1:35 pm
but Matgamna’s stuff on the 1999 Yugoslavia/Kosov@ war is also partly crap, denouncing the ethnic cleansing by the Serbian state (not by “the Serbs”) is correct but not seing that the NATO intervention let to ethnic cleansing against Roma, Ashkali, Bosniaks, Serbs and other minorities in Kosov@ by the UCK
John J said,
November 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm
“But they did march behind organisations who were loud supporters of organisations that seek and achieve the political murder of Jews. Not because they were actually seeking that outcome, but, I guess, because they just didn’t mind it very much.”.
That’s it, exactly, John… Maybe Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t for us, but it’s a different culture in the Middle East, innit. They’re “anti-imperialist”, right? What they do with women, gays and Jews isn’t our affair.
Steve said,
November 9, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I will come back to the ‘masterpiece’ when I have fully understood it.
On ‘support’ for Hamas, even Galloway is at pains to point out that he is a supporter of Fatah and not Hamas but makes the point that Hamas were the elected representatives of the Palestinians so you can’t just ignore them. Nothing wrong with that position. In the murderous bestial attack on Gaza by Israel I have to say my sympathy was with the Palestinians, Hamas supporters and all. In fact the rise of Hamas has not changed my position on Israel one jot – One state solution.
In Israels murderous, failed assault on the Lebanon I was cheering on the Lebanese and delighted the Israeli’s were sent packing. If that makes me an Hezbollah supporter then they need to redefine the word masterpiece.
On the ruling class occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – I want the troops brought home and Blair and his henchmen arrested for war crimes.
The so called support for Iran has to be seen in the context of the beating of the war drums, as countering the war mongerers propaganda. I saw no evidence of actual support for the regime.
The far left (especially the SWP) are very very critical of China, some elements are out and out apologists but then some who claim to be on the left are out and out Israeli apologists.
Basically these accusations of ‘support’ for Iran or Hamas or even Israel are often false accusations, built on false premises, show an inability or refusal to understand the argument and if true only ever apply to a very very tiny minority.
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 2:25 pm
“On ‘support’ for Hamas, even Galloway is at pains to point out that he is a supporter of Fatah and not Hamas”
Funny, he did not seem to take that position when handing over the cash, he and his supporters are overtly pro-Hamas and have defended them in public many times.
” I saw no evidence of actual support for the regime.”
Take a look at the Lenin’s Tomb website which published long pieces supporting the Iranian regime and sneering at those killed by the police.
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 2:28 pm
“In Israels murderous, failed assault on the Lebanon I was cheering on the Lebanese and delighted the Israeli’s were sent packing.”
I find this line puzzling, partly because I can’t imagine what kind of a moral low you would have to reach to think of a war in terms of ‘cheering’ for a side. But maybe you can clarify, are you pro-Hezbollah or not (when you are not just enjoying the dying, I mean)?
FlyingRodent said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm
…you marched behind a leadership that was overtly pro-Hamas, in other words a political movement that endorsed the politics of a genocidally antisemitic organisation.
The key figures at the Glasgow march were Margo MacDonald, Tommy Sheridan and John Swinney, now the country’s finance minister. Tone of march, later proven precisely, 100% correct – “Invading Iraq will result in a disastrous, Vietnamesque bloodbath”. Unmentioned and unhinted at – Genocide of the Jews.
But that doesn’t matter, because George Galloway, like, the BNP, man! Ergo, we can conclude that literally everyone who attended personally cheerleads terroristic genocide and anti-Imperialist Hezbollah and arseblahwillthisdo.
Honestly, there’s nothing to do when presented with this self-serving, slogan-heavy horseshit other than to laugh and laugh. The Bush admin’s personnel roster read like the cast of Iran/Contra: The Musical with a number of cameos from Rambo Goes To El Salvador. How many war supporters are on the hook for throwing their lot in with these jokers, or for the actual murderous outcome of the war?
None. Slow handclap for consistency, I suppose.
Give it up, guys. I’ve heard more convincing sales pitches from Honest John’s Crazy Used Auto Emporium and been sold more solid products by Mr. Mako at Basking Finance Plc.
For years, you’ve been pushing the argument is that George Galloway is horrible, thus anti-war sentiment is explicit support for Hamas, the Chinese Communist Party, Darth Vader and itchy piles. I have to ask – had many takers for this product, have you? Winning new customers, conquering the marketplace, expanding into new areas?
If you’re not – and let’s be clear, in that your tired and silly bullshit is about as popular as oral herpes at the finger buffet, politically speaking – then I suggest that there’s an explanation for this… And that it’s unconnected to the portentous omens of pro-genocide sentiment that you constantly divine in the chicken entrails of some mad Commie’s blog.
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:12 pm
“The key figures at the Glasgow march were Margo MacDonald, Tommy Sheridan and John Swinney, now the country’s finance minister.”
Nobody denies that mainstream figures were prepared to align themselves with the and theocrats except for you, so you make the case for me.
The fact is that if members of the coalition were vocal supporters of, say, the BNP (an organisation much more moderate than Hamas) these people would not have taken part. They simply do not recognise organisations that are homicidally antisemitic as being similarly repugnant, that is where a significant part of the left has got to. You are a clear example of the trend. You may not want especially that Jews be killed but you will not distance yourself from those who do because it just doesn’t seem to you like a very important point. You wave your hands, mouth idiocies about George Galloway, snigger at the thought that Jews get all upset because of a bit of ‘rhetoric’ even if, yes, sometimes the rhetoric is accompanied by bombs and rockets, and move on.
Whatever label you want to sling at me said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:18 pm
John – you’re being mischievous in refusing to distinguish between political and military support here. This is a distinction prevelent in trotskyist circles, and while as a bifurcation it is not without its flaws (war in a continuation of politics by other means after all), it seems to have a certain amount of common sense about it. For example, presumably you are pleased that the Soviet Union drove to Nazis out of Eastern Europe? Yet it would be unfair to label you a Stalinist for doing so. Similar principle with the Islamist groups fighting Israel: if one takes it as a starting point that the Israeli military action (and/or) occupation against Palestine/Lebanon is unjustified then one must conceed that it is inherently right to resist it, and it not necessary to support the politics of those that do. The other possible positions to adopt are
(1) Support of Israeli agression
(2) Pacifism – opposition to all use of force
Position (1) is merely to take the opposite side in a military conflict, so attacking your opponents for siding with the other side is only that, and nothing else. (2) is a consistant moral position which has to be justified on it’s own terms. There is a third position which is (3) the argument that Hamas and Hizbullah actively damage the Palestinian and Lebanese chances for peace/security/statehood etc so supporting them to support the Palestinians is openly self defeating. This third argument is normally put forward by people of your ilk (i.e. HP Sauce, Kamm etc) but is usually done so in conjunction with (1) which renders it somewhat disingenuous (i.e. it’s more to do with support for Israel than support for the Palestinians). If (3) is made independently from (1), i.e. it stands alone, then the argument is transformed from a moral/political one to a purely pragmatic one (i.e. there is no principle at stake as such).
If the main reason for your argument is (1) then
Whatever label you want to sling at me said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:19 pm
oops… ignore last half finished sentence.
FlyingRodent said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:20 pm
align themselves with theocrats… the BNP… homicidally antisemitic … You may not want especially that Jews be killed… but you will not distance yourself from those who do… snigger at the thought that Jews get all upset… bombs and rockets
House!
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm
#23 In other words you support Hezbollah an ultra-reactionary, antisemitic, theocratic organisation and you still consider yourself to be on the left. That was the point of the post. You simply help make the case. It is perfectly possible to support the right of the Lebanese to self-defence without supporting Hezbollah which commands precious little support in Lebanon itself.
Whatever label you want to sling at me said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Actually fuck it, what flying rodent said. Pointing and laughing is probably the best response to these jerks.
p.s. – who made you spokesperson for the jews Merdith, you self aggrandising clown?
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Vietnamesque bloodbath … Genocide … the BNP … cheerleads terroristic genocide … anti-Imperialist Hezbollah … Bush … Iran/Contra … El Salvador … war supporters … murderous … horrible … the marketplace …
Yes, that’s easy and fun and I can see why you prefer it to argument Rodent!.
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:32 pm
“Actually fuck it, what flying rodent said”
You make me dizzy, so you DON’t support Hezbollah, now or what? Why so upset?
John Meredith said,
November 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm
“self aggrandising clown”
Being opposed to organised antisemitism is some sort of self-aggrandisement now? It used just to be, well, left.
David D. said,
November 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm
“Being opposed to organised antisemitism”… is so “yesterday”, John. You’re just behind the times.
Andrew Coates said,
November 9, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Since Historic Tortskyism has raised its head what does Matgama think of the Lambertist Parti Ouvriere Independent.
One the hand it is certainly ultra-nationalist and anti-European.
On the other its links with with the Algerian Workers’ Party (Parti de travailleurs) – who have a couple of dozen MPs and about 1,000 local councillors hardly indicate a pro-Islamist collapse. Far from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_(Algeria)
I would add that on a far wider sections of the French lelt do not fit his model of ‘anti-imperialism’ by virtue of their secularism to begin with.
jim denham said,
November 10, 2010 at 12:10 am
Flying Rodent is either genuinely ignorant about the current state of the British “left”, or is in denial. I honestly don’t know which. I suppose there’s a possible third explanation: he’s simply dishonest. But before leaping to that conclusion, I’d prefer to explore the other two explanations.
Rodent’s either willful or honestly ignorant inability to recognise the true politics behind, for instance the ‘Stop The War Coalition’, reminded me of this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/15/iraq
FlyingRodent said,
November 10, 2010 at 9:05 am
Flying Rodent is either genuinely ignorant about the current state of the British “left”, or is in denial. I honestly don’t know which. I suppose there’s a possible third explanation: he’s simply dishonest.
Any or all of these are plausible, and I’m certainly not in any position to judge. Allow me to suggest that there may be a fourth, less palatable explanation, however…
FlyingRodent said,
November 10, 2010 at 9:38 am
Suppose that those anti-war marches in ’03 were just that – marches against the war, in which the only opinion that could be assumed of any of the attendees was that they were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Why, that would make the STWC a sparrow perched on top of an elephant, pretending to giving directions.
And suppose then that a gaggle of leftists decided – whether because they were very cynical and very opportunistic, or merely too stupid to understand – that this represented not a broad swathe of society voicing its feelings on a single subject, but that this was somehow a new upsurge in leftist Jihadoterrorist sympathising, based upon the ramblings of George Galloway and some bloke called Andy who runs a website.
We’ll call this gaggle of of cynical, opportunistic and plain dense lefties “the Recent Left”, for simplicity. Now, having identified a mass movement of pan-Islamist, Israel-hating trendy kitsch left wingers, this Recent Left set about a search for hook-handed Muslim crazies, Yank-bashing college professors and angry CiF commenters, and conflated from this anarchic, aimless babble of micro-sects and individuals a mass political movement sweeping the nation and infecting nearly every strand of left wing thought.
For a while, everything was grand – the Americans’ wars went ahead, and the baddies took a terrific kicking. Why, it was like the Berlin Wall falling all over again – peace, freedom and justice reigning, and any old Commies who objected to, say, the lurking presence of Exxon execs or old El Salvador campaign warhorses could be blown away with the magic phrase “If you love Saddam so much, why don’t you go live there?”
But out in the real world, trouble was brewing. No sooner did the war start than all of those hundreds of thousands of people who had marched against it disappeared, almost as quickly as they had gathered. That gave the worrying impression that the marches had not been pro-extremist, genocidal blah whatevers after all, and that all those who had loudly pretended this was the case had been telling porky pies. Whether deliberately or through idiocy, it looked a lot like the Recents were liars and frauds.
Further, in Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader middle east, those righteous wars for democracy had somehow turned into hideous, ultraviolent bloodbaths. The Recent Left now found itself promoting anti-fascism by soft-soaping America’s most pointless, kill-crazy rampages.
In Iraq, the RL found that its US allies had employed the country’s nastiest Islamo-loony headchoppers and was paying them to kill an even worse gang of nutters on their behalf; In Afghanistan, that the US was firing high explosives blind into the darkness in the hope of a deus ex machina deliverence. Even in Israel, the Recents found their commitment to resisting anti-semitism tarnished by association with a gang of belligerent, hard-right wing ultranationalists and ethnic supremacist racists.
At this point, the Recents should’ve realised that their “anti-racism” was a form of glorified excuse-making for violence; that their grand plans for internationalism had turned to shite in their hands and that meanwhile, their supposedly horrible enemy amounted to three blokes, a dog and a Blogger account, plus a few columnists who dared suggest that cruise missiles make poor peacekeepers.
What to do when the facts change, and you’re faced with the certainty that you’ve been wrong all along? Well, if you were called “Sean”, for instance, you spit on your hands and dig the shovel back into the teetering pile of horseshit you’ve collected, hoping against hope that there may be a pony in there somewhere. Thus, “the poverty of the anti-imperialists”.
Now, I’m open to discussion on “ignorance”, “denial” and “dishonesty”. I hope you’ll understand why I’m cynical about the prospects for getting one out of you, Jimbo.
John Meredith said,
November 10, 2010 at 10:26 am
Suppose all that FR and suppose that one member of the coalition had been the BNP (which, if I rightly recall, did attempt to affiliate to this movement). Would you still have marched? You seem to be saying, yes, it should not have mattered what the political affiliations of the movement were so long as you felt rilly rilly like war is wrong, man. But perhaps you will tell me that there were after all political entities that the left should not have affiliated with even in a cause as important as opposing a war?
Steve said,
November 10, 2010 at 3:41 pm
“are you pro-Hezbollah or not (when you are not just enjoying the dying, I mean)?”
I was fully supportive of the Lebanese resistance to the Israeli attacks and was over the moon to see the mighty heavily armed Israeli’s enjoy a defeat. Those David v Goliath stories really lift my spirits.
On enjoying the dying, I would have preferred it if Israel had not attacked in the first place. Presumably John Meredith was upset that more Lebanese/Hizbollah supporters were not killed. I guess in the end you have to take sides. I have never been comfortable with neutral.
John Meredith said,
November 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“I was fully supportive of the Lebanese resistance to the Israeli attacks and was over the moon to see the mighty heavily armed Israeli’s enjoy a defeat. Those David v Goliath stories really lift my spirits.”
Since this was your answer to the question ‘do you support Hezbollah or not’ I think it is fair to infer that you are a Hezbollah supporter. And that supporters thee contention of this post that parts of the left have shamefully moved to positions where they can affiliate with racist, ultra-right wing parties. And if you found that nasty conflict ‘uplifting’ I am not, given your politics, all that surprised.
“I guess in the end you have to take sides. ”
Perhaps you do. You have chosen theocratic fascism which is a shame.
Steve said,
November 10, 2010 at 5:46 pm
John Meredith ,
As I said they need to redefine masterpiece if this is what Matgamna teaches you. For you 1+1 = 7.
Little point trying to engage really.
Steve said,
November 10, 2010 at 6:03 pm
More from the great RCG:
http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/britain/1946-uaf-capitulates-to-zionist-racism.html
http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/reports/london-reports/1947-ten-years-of-intifada-what-future-for-palestine.html
Support the Palestinian resistance!
Steve said,
November 10, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Another interesting take on Hamas here:
http://19thbrumaire.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html
charliethechulo said,
November 10, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Ah, the RCG: the people behind the boycott of Marks and Spencer…
John Meredith said,
November 11, 2010 at 8:59 am
“Ah, the RCG: the people behind the boycott of Marks and Spencer…2
I think Steve has made it pretty clear how he feels about ‘zionists’.
jim denham said,
November 12, 2010 at 12:37 am
Rodent says: “Now, I’m open to discussion on “ignorance”, “denial” and “dishonesty”. I hope you’ll understand why I’m cynical about the prospects for getting one out of you, Jimbo.”
Jimbo replies: explain, please Rodent
1/ The refusal leadership of the Stop The War Movement (ie the SWP) to allow *any* form of criticism of Islamist violence in its materials?
2/ Their exclusion of leftists (not just the AWL) who criticised Islamism?
3/ The willingness to make common cause with the MAB/ Muslim Brotherhood and to, promote slogans on marches (“Two States Is No Solution”; “From The Rive To The Sea”) that actually called for the destruction of Israel?
4/ The promotion by the SWP and their fellow-travellers of pro-Hamas and Hezbollah slogans (eg: “We Are All Hamas” / “Hezbollah”)?
5/ The failure of SWP stewards on anti-war marches to act against people who harassed and verbally abused Jewish marchers and (on one accassion) a Jewish platform speaker?
What I find annoying about Rodent is that s/he never makes it clear whether s/he thinks none of the above is true, or that it may be true but doesn’t matter, or whether s/he simply agrees with the politics described above. Perhaps you’d care to clarify this, Rodent.
And please be assured, you’ll always get a discussion on these matters from me.
I look forward to your reply.
P.S: having re-read Rodent’s most recent post (above) it is now apparent to me that he does, in fact *agree* with the pro-Islamicist, poplular-frontist politics described. His previous claims to the contrary (as with his enthusiasm for capitulation to the Taliban on the grounds of “realism”), were so much rhetorical flak to obscure the semi-Maoist politics that lie behind his smart-alec “realism.” Now Rodent is perfectly free to argue for that sort of politics. What is unaccepatable is to dress it up as some kind of disinterested “common sense” commentary on the political issues under discussion.
resistor said,
November 12, 2010 at 1:08 am
‘Matgamna’s latest instalment is, quite simply, a Marxist masterpiece’
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
resistor said,
November 12, 2010 at 1:10 am
Oh my aching sides! Satire is not dead yet while Denham drinks.
FlyingRodent said,
November 12, 2010 at 7:50 am
explain, please Rodent…
1. Nobody cares about the SWP.
2. Nobody cares about the SWP.
3. Nobody cares about the SWP.
4. Nobody cares about the SWP.
5. Nobody cares about the SWP*.
(Actually, this isn’t quite true – presumably, the SWP themselves care. Also, a small number of lunatics in dire and desperate need of pantomime villains, in order to justify their own deranged, bomb-happy fantasy politics, are fiercely interested in the activities of the SWP as a fig-leaf for their cluelessness).
it is now apparent to me that he does, in fact *agree* with the pro-Islamicist, poplular-frontist politics described…
Oh please, continue. It’s always fun watching you thrash around frantically trying to extrapolate THE FASCISM out of some uncontroversial statement I’ve made.
Rupert Pendell Bryce said,
November 12, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I do believe that when the sectarian political islamists were fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan back in the day Jim Denham was on their side. Today he is on the side of political judaism (zionism) which spookily also has the full backing of Western imperialism in its crusade against the Palestinian and Muslim peoples. Such is the genius behind Sean Matgamna’s discovery of the `poverty of anti-imperialism’.
David D. said,
November 12, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Pro-Islamism apparently trumps popular-frontism these days in the “anti-imperialist” left.
http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004158
Max Dunbar said,
November 12, 2010 at 6:53 pm
This argument is still relevant (you can tell because of the screams of outrage from far left commenters to what is an obvious and established truth) but I can see where Rodent is coming from. The kind of idiot anti-imperialism is confined to career revolutionaries like Newman, Galloway, Livingstone, the more demented elements of liberal-left politics and media. I doubt the SWP could get two million on the streets today. And I doubt that anyone on the student/Vodafone demos would have any time for their bullshit.
Lobby ludd said,
November 12, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Which particular “screams of outrage from far left commenters” are you thinking of, Max?
Are they the same people who “rant”?
Any chance that you might think that some people who disagree with you neither ‘rant’ nor express themselves in ‘screams of outrage’?
You are an aggressive little fuck, aren’t you, Max? You don’t want to have a rational discussion, you want to condemn, condemn, condemn.
It’s your hobby, isn’t it?
FlyingRodent said,
November 13, 2010 at 12:17 am
I doubt the SWP could get two million on the streets today.
For fuck’s sake, the SWP didn’t get two million on the streets then, in 2003. The utterly insane and mental plan to attack Iraq, Vietnam-style put two million people on the street. How could you possibly miss that?
How hard is this to grasp? do you want a bar chart, or something? It was obvious to everyone else at the time!
charliethechulo said,
November 13, 2010 at 12:18 am
“Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha”: from a sick man.
jim denham said,
November 13, 2010 at 12:32 am
Rodent, let me spell it out to you. The membership of the SWP is , as you say, small. But like the CP in the 1930′s. 40′s and 50′s, its influence extends considerably beyond its formal membership, including into the ranks of people who would have nothing, consciously, to do with them. Just as the CP influenced the Labour left. Thus, largely thanks to the SWP, it is now widely held on the Brit “left” that it’s OK to support Hamas, Hezbullah, the Muslim Brotherhood and be for the destruction of Israel. OK: those ideas were there, floating around on the fringes of the “left” and the far-right (mainly in semi-Moaist circles and amongst fascists) anyway, but it took the SWP to make them “respectable” And they also took root in the US “anti-war” movement” via the viciously anti-semitic ‘Workers’ World’ organisation. Either you say, like ‘Rodent’, that these ideas don’t really matter (and I’d repeat to him my questions as to *why* he thinks they don’t matter -see above), or you take ideas seriously and agree with me that these positions must be fought, discredited and defeated by the serious, principled left.
And, of course, two million people were mobilised *despite* the SWP’s carzy, pro-Islamist politics. Even more could have been mobilised, and been kept mobilised, with decent, rational politics. But the fact is that the SWP were able to seize control of that movement and tie it in to their filthy pro-Islamic, anti-Israel (actually, anti-semitic) politcs. Do you accept that account of what happened, Rodent? And if you do, do you think that it was a good or a bad thing? Do you think it’s worth fighting these ideas, or better to just let them go?
I suppose it depends upon whether you’re concerned about whether working class activists are properly educated in truth and facts or allowed to be miseducated with lies and backwardness. If you don’t believe that the working class can create socialism, then I suppose it doesn’t matter.
You should also read this account of a recent meeting of the Stop The War Coalition, written by people we at Shiraz would not support, but who attempted to combine opposition to all wars with opposition to he Iranian regime. Note that the pro-Ahmadinejad line was supported not just by the SWP and fellow-travellers, or even just by the craven power-worshipper Galloway, but also by Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn and ex-Labour minister Tony Benn. Which is exactly my point, Rodent: geddit?
FlyingRodent said,
November 13, 2010 at 1:27 am
I hate to come off like a political philistine Jim, but i couldn’t give a shit about your travails with these piddiy sects that you find so important. I don’t care and i doubt that many others do either.
I refer you to my – unanswered – comments at 47 an 52, both of which I think are fairly accurate.
jim denham said,
November 13, 2010 at 1:35 am
“…but i couldn’t give a shit about your travails with these piddiy sects “: I forgot, Rodent: you’re not of the serious left, are you? But of course, you’ve never been so kind as to lert us know what your political views are.
If, for instance, you are a Tory (or the US equivalent) on the isolationist right (someone like Simon Jenkins of the ‘Graun’ for instance), then your attitude would make perfect sense. But are you?
Please, just let us in to your secret political world. Then, at least we’ll know what we’re dealing with, and whether or not to assume certain common ground that (even now) socialists tend to have.
FlyingRodent said,
November 13, 2010 at 1:48 am
Please, just let us in to your secret political world.
No bother – this is my main blog for the past four years. I blush at my early opinions, green as they are.. http://www.flyingrodent.blogspot.com
Here’s the one I started a little later, out of hilarity at the shit politics of the decent left… http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/
jim denham said,
November 13, 2010 at 1:58 am
Yeah, we can all work out what you’re against, Rodent: how about telling us what you’re *for*?
FlyingRodent said,
November 13, 2010 at 2:21 am
how about telling us what you’re *for*?
Pussycats & puppies, apple turnover, go-kart racing. Sloppy kisses & Celtic FC for the title, today and tomorrow.
If you feel that the sum total of my meagre political thought over the last four years – with search function! – is insufficient, then fine.
FlyingRodent said,
November 13, 2010 at 2:33 am
With a four leaf clover on my breast,
And the green and white upon my chest,
It’s such a joy for us to see,
For they play football the Celtic way.
That’s what I’m for, Peeps. I can get behind that, any day of the week.
jim denham said,
November 13, 2010 at 2:37 am
“What are you for?”: a straight answer would be nice. Too much to ask? I wonder why?
FlyingRodent said,
November 13, 2010 at 3:05 am
Too much to ask? I wonder why?
Because you’re always looking for Trotsky, or some other mad dead russian. Lieutenant Columbo – Peter Falk – was always a bigger influence on me. For real.
maxdunbar said,
November 13, 2010 at 9:40 am
The fact is that the left has yet to make a clean break from totalitarianism.
In 2010, that is astonishing
resistor said,
November 13, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Dunbar writes of ‘idiot anti-imperialism’. But of course he supported the invasion of Iraq and is opposed to any kind of anti-imperialism because he is an imperialist.
As for Denham, ‘The membership of the SWP is , as you say, small. But like the CP in the 1930′s. 40′s and 50′s, its influence extends considerably beyond its formal membership, including into the ranks of people who would have nothing, consciously, to do with them.’
Do I detect jealousy Jimbo? Of course the AWL have zero influence with anyone other than their pitifully few and sheep-like members and, er Nick Cohen.
jim denham said,
November 13, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Rodent: I asked you perfectly reasonable question, in a civil manner: what *do* you positively stand for?
I get a fuck-wit answer:
“Too much to ask? I wonder why?
Because you’re always looking for Trotsky, or some other mad dead russian. Lieutenant Columbo – Peter Falk – was always a bigger influence on me. For real.”
I’m afraid, Rodent, that I cannot take you seriously and suspect that you are a thoroughly dishonest dissembler. A prolific blogger on politics should be willing to give a sensible answer to the question “what do you stand for?”
You, Rodent, evidently, cannot. Or will not. I wonder why?
jim denham said,
November 13, 2010 at 10:25 pm
For the benefit of the rat with wings:
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/19/in-defence-of-the-swp/