The ‘Guardian”s soft Stalinism

March 22, 2011 at 4:04 pm (africa, apologists and collaborators, Guardian, Jim D, Middle East, stalinism)

“Barely had a new door to international action been opened by the UN resolution authorising military action and a no-fly zone in Libya than it seemed to slam shut, when Libya’s foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, announced that Libya would abide by it and called for an immediate ceasefire. The shelling of Zintan and Misratah continued, however, and Britain, France and America all had a ready reponse. It was the actions of Colonel Gaddafi’s forces, not the words of his henchmen, that mattered, they said…

…”But Gaddafi’s forces were still 160km away from Benghazi. The city was not about to fall and no lives have yet been saved. Push past the justification, and on to the question of what the objective of this intervention is, and the consensus starts to crumble…

…”Far from supporting a democratic revolution across the Arab world, a foreign intervention in Libya may indeed be imperilling it. One of the main strengths of the revolution was that it was universal and generational. It did not require outside help…”

– Excerpted from the Guardian editorial 19 March 2011.

The Guardian, which not long ago seemed to be calling for international support for the Libyan rebels, seems to have done an about-turn and is spouting “anti-intervention” rhetoric not dissimilar to to the isolationist clichés and banalities churned out by the ‘Stop the War Coaltion’ and the Morning Star (now increasingly openly  apologists for Gaddafi).

Admittedly the Graun‘s isolationist stance is slightly softer and more balanced, noting for instance, that “David Cameron has  a firmer legal framework for military action than anything Tony Blair could concoct for the invasion of Iraq.”  But ultimately, the message is pretty much the same (apart from the forlorn  “let us hope…” coda):

…”As British Tornados, French Dassaults and Candian F-18s prepare to patrol the skies over Tripoli, it will be business as usual – an intervention which looks much like all the others. Let us hope it has a different outcome.”

The Graun, like the Morning Star, of course completely ignores what makes the Libyan intervention different from “all the others”: the simple fact that the rebels themselves, engaged in a life-and-death struggle, have cried out for it. To have refused them would have been a foul, cynical exercise in “realism” for a bourgeois politician; for a socialist it would be no less than scabbing.

The Graun‘s soft-Stalinism and the “arguments” that go with it (Western hypocrisy, why not attack lots of other nasty regimes? and – amazingly- the intervention will “imperil”  the revolution), are all culled from the STWC/Morning Star handbook of beside-the-point banality. John Rentoul, in the Independent On Sunday neatly summed up the “logic” behind the “why Libya and not lots of other nasty regimes?”, thus: ” This is the…Why Should I Tidy My Bedroom When The World’s Such A Mess theory of foreign policy.”

The only surprise is that the Graun hasn’t (yet) wheeled out that old favourite: “It’s a war for oil!” Oh yes, in today’s edition, guest columnist Andrew Murray (wearing his “chair of the Stop The War Coalition” hat), does just that

Mention of of Mr Murray, an unreconstructed Stalin-fan and tankie, brings us to his friend and ideological soul-mate, the Wykehamist Stalin-fan and Gruan associate editor, Seamas “Posh Boy” Milne. The influence of Milne (and his friends)  is almost certainly behind the Graun‘s conversion to soft Stalinism. This has already been evident in the paper’s Middle East coverage, and in particular its extraordinary “ultra-leftism” over the so-called “Palestine Papers” – coverage brilliantly denounced here by the AWL’s Sean Matgamna.

To paraphrase Comrade Matgamna, the Guardian is the paper of degenerate liberals – people who seem to feel an inner compulsion to accomodate to the most ultra-reactionary forces in the Middle East and elsewhere. Its “liberal” backbone crumbled years ago. How apt, then, that its political “line” seems now to be determined in large part, by a Stalinist.

35 Comments

  1. septicisle said,

    Nice to see this blog descending even further into parody.

  2. Morto Che Parla said,

    The “most reactionary forces in the Middle East”…woudl that include the cases when you lto supported the Taliban. Or just today when you support the destruction of Africas most advanced welfare state and its partitioning under western backed islamist warlords?

    No wonder your little party hasn’t grown in 30 years. haha. I can’t anticapte youg etting a section in Libya any time soon.

    • Morto Che Parla said,

      Do you mean “fascist”…?:s

      Coming from an illiterate sympathiser of a party which supported the Taliban, I can only take that as a compliment.

      • Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers with added vitamins and minerals said,

        fashiTT crackpot

  3. Morto Che Parla said,

    Also why is “Guardian” in quotation marks? Do you believe this to be a pseudonym?

  4. ahmed desai said,

    Jim

    you finally see sense, coming round to the view of Hamas and Hizbollah on the need to oust the dictator Gaddafi.

    A popular front; you, Hamas, Hizbollah, the US, Britain and France.

    Maybe it’s time to revise your views on Uncle Joe- he definitely would have approved of your policy. It’s good to see a Trot who can actually look past all that permanent revolution rubbish and address the world as it actually is.

    One step forward.

  5. OMG said,

    Jim, you are so right.

    All this nonsense about imperialism. That was all very well in the olden days, with slavery and all that. But really, it just doesn’t apply to the brave forces of the United States of America, Great Britain and France.

    They are more like superheroes, touring the world saving lives and rescuing revolutionaries. I just wish there were more of them.

    I agree with you that the Guardian are absolute SCUM and BASTARDS for asking some mild questions about this war, when it is obvious that socialists should be 100000% on the side of HER MAJESTY’S ARMED FORCES.

    Anyone who questions this is definitely a SCAB, as your analysis so wisely proves.

    That’s why I never read the pinko liberal SCAB SCUM BASTARD Guardian. Those SCUM betrayed the brave democrats of Egypt when they opposed the invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis. And a leopard never changes its spots.

    If it wasn’t for this site, people might think that socialists were actually against “IMPERIALISM”.

    Keep up the good work.

    • Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers with added vitamins and minerals said,

      utter crackpot. keeps them off the street i suppose. where they could cause harm to themselves and otheres

  6. Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers with added vitamins and minerals said,

    seymour has some shit at comment is werthless that i mentioned eralier — you lot deleted that comment. seymour’s shit is repulsive and disgusting toss of course. something about gadaffee is being made out to be bad man by meedjia and that is weely bad

    For more demonisation of gaddaffee duck see this:
    http://www.muslimsdebate.com/n.php?nid=5464

  7. paul fauvet said,

    The survivors of genocide have no doubt on the matter – Gaddafi must be stopped. Rwandan President Paul Kagame published a powerful piece in “The Times” today giving full support to UN Resolution 1973 and to the NATO air strikes.

    I would much rather stand with Paul Kagame than with Seamus Milne, the SWP’s fake Lenin, Andy Newman and the other “anti-imperialist” apologists for tyranny.

    I’ve managed to circumvent the Murdoch paywall, so here are some key extracts from the Kagame article:

    “My country is still haunted by memories of the international community looking away as a million Rwandans were killed. No country knows better than my own the costs of the international community failing to intervene to prevent a state killing its own people. In the course of 100 days in 1994, a million Rwandans were killed by government-backed “genocidaires” and the world did nothing to stop them.

    “So it is encouraging that members of the international community appear to have learnt the lessons of that failure. Through UN Resolution 1973 we are seeing a committed intervention to halt the crisis that was unfolding in Libya.

    “Given the overriding mandate of Operation Odyssey Dawn to protect Libyan civilians from state-sponsored attacks, Rwanda can only stand in support of it. Our responsibility to protect is unquestionable — this is the right thing to do, and this view is backed with the authority of having witnessed and suffered the terrible consequences of international inaction.

    “Now that the UN Security Council has taken a strong stand and sent the message that our global community will be relentless in protecting civilians under threat, particularly from their own leaders, we cannot be seen to be indecisive about moving forward in completion of this aim.

    “There are no two ways about it: the resolution authorises the use of all necessary means to protect Libyans — so wherever there is need of protection, the allied coalition should act, and do so in no uncertain terms.

    “From the African perspective there are important lessons to learn, the main one being that we as the African Union need to respond faster and more effectively to situations such as these. Despite the AU Peace and Security Council holding consultations early this month to discuss the crisis in Libya, and subsequently deciding to send a fact-finding mission to that country, this response was slow and in the end overtaken by events on the ground.

    “It is regrettable that although Libya is a member of our regional community, Africa’s only voice on this crucial issue was that of the few countries that sit on the UN Security Council (South Africa, Nigeria and Gabon). This is not sufficient for our Continent: we should be doing, and seen to be doing, the right thing at the right time — not from the sidelines of operations such as this, but right at the heart of solutions to the problems that are facing our people.

    “We cannot assume that there would have been a unanimous consensus on what course of action to pursue, but I do believe the majority of member states would have supported Resolution 1973 for the simple reason that we cannot continue watching the chaos that was consuming Libya while its people were crying out for help. While the support may not have been military, the AU could have offered something far more valuable — political support and moral authority for the coalition’s actions on the ground.

    “There would have been other advantages to Africans having been more actively involved in the process that led to this joint action in Libya: first, it would have shown that African nations were ready to step up to the plate, accept their responsibilities and do the right thing. To that extent it might have helped to erode the outdated and negative perception of Africa as a place destined for conflict and endemic poverty.

    “African Union support for Operation Odyssey Dawn would have acted as a further deterrent to other African leaders who might be tempted to target their own people with violence”.

  8. Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers with added vitamins and minerals said,

    Jimbo — i want an apology from you.

  9. Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers with added vitamins and minerals said,

    Looked at the Guardian website, the other day …bullet point headlines about Libya:

    • More than 110 Tomahawks launched
    • West accused of ‘indiscriminate use of force’
    • State TV reports at least 48 dead

    So…that works out to less than half a person killed per Tomahawk launched and this is “indiscriminate”?

    Did a little bit of math and calculated that on average 5.4 people died a minute (using conservative wikipedia estimates of deaths) during the 140 days of the Battle of the Somme. That’s indiscriminate.

    Fucking pussies these days.

  10. Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers with added vitamins and minerals said,

    the SWP line on this: solidarity with the Libyan people! (unless it involves
    dropping bombs on the people trying to kill them in which case we’ll
    just wring our hands and let them die and tweet about book for sale
    on amazon by lunatic seymoredick)

  11. Morto Che Parla said,

    Oscar Lomax resembles a drunk tramp on the street shouting abuseively and incoherently at passers by. Fitting that he should be the biggest defender of this “freedom” loving blog.

    There’s no democracy when there are no standards of behaviour. Mob rule isn’t democracy.

    Poor people of Libya to have their country placed under the control of such a society.

  12. resistor said,

    Nice to see that the Stalinist Paul Fauvet is standing shoulder to shoulder with Tony Blair’s new best friend (formerly Colonel Gaddafi) the dictator of Rwanda, Paul Kagame.

    Yes the same Paul Kagame who precipitated the genocide in Rwanda by murdering the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi.

    The same Paul Kagame who committed genocide in the Congo,

    The same Paul Kagame who is murdering his opponents one by one – including the leader of the Rwandan Green Party.

    I wonder which other of Paul Fauvet’s heroes was a genocidal maniac who bumped off his political enemies? Oh yes, Uncle Joe.

  13. paul fauvet said,

    Resistor resisting common sense as usual – and this time recycling anti-Rwanda French propaganda too.

    There is no evidence that Kagame’s forces in the Rwanda Patriotic Front shot down the plane carrying the two presidents. It is much more likely that Hutu extremists were responsible, since they believed that Habyarimana was going soft and wouldn’t back a genocidal onslaught ion the Tutsis.

    As for Kagame committing genocide in Congo, this is nonsense. Yes, the Rwandan army went into Congo – because that was where the genocidaires had gone, and they continued to pose a threat to Rwanda. Senior Rwandan officials certainly profited from the Congo war – but that is not the same thing as committing genocide.

    It is undoubtedly true that Rwandan opposition politicians have been arrested, but the only prominent figure murdered, as as far as I am aware, was the deputy president of the Green Party, Andre Rwisereka. No evidence has been produced tying Kagame to the murder. It’s not even clear whether the motive was political.

    An independent journalist named Jean-Leonard Rugumbage was killed last June, after his investigations into the attempted murder in South Africa of the former chief of staff of the Rwandan army, General Kay­umba Nyamwasa.

    Maybe Kagame ordered these crimes and maybe he didn’t. If Resistor has some hard evidence, let him produce it.

    I don’t approve of Kagame’s increasingly intolerant line towards the Rwandan opposition, but that does not detract from his role as the man who brought the genocide to an end.

    As for me and Stalin, as a matter of easily verifiable fact I was a member of the anti-stalinist, eurocommunist wing of the old CPGB in the 1970s.

  14. Alan Corbett said,

    This looks up your street, if nothing to do with the subject at hand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl1jPqqTdNo

  15. resistor said,

    Fauvet writes, ‘There is no evidence that Kagame’s forces in the Rwanda Patriotic Front shot down the plane carrying the two presidents.’

    Oh yes there is, and he knows it. In fact a French judge has published an indictment charging Kagame with the murders.

    http://www.kambale.com/pdf/french_judge_brugriere_report_on_kagame.pdf

    As for the Congo

    An April 2001 United Nations report alleged “mass scale looting” of Congolese mineral resources. The report claimed that senior members of the Rwandan government had made hundreds of millions of dollars from illegal mineral trading, and that:

    “Presidents Kagame and [Uganda’s President] Museveni are on the verge of becoming the godfathers of the illegal exploitation of natural resources and the continuation of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

    A June 2001 Amnesty International report implicated Rwandan and Rwandan-backed forces (amongst others) in the deliberate killing of thousands of Congolese civilians.

    Finally, Fauvet claims to be a non-Stalinist member of the Stalinist CPGB and continued to be a member after the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia.

    I think we can see why he admires murderous and corrupt dictators like Kagame and excuses their crimes.

    • paul fauvet said,

      You are an ignorant fool, Resistor. You say I continued to be a member of the CPGB after the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

      In fact I joined the CPGB in 1971. And the CPGB firmly condemned the invasion (which was what precipitated the split between the Stalinist and Eurocommunist wings of the party). I would never have joined a party that supported the crushing of the Prague Spring.

      You reveal yourself as entirely ignorant of the history of British communism.

      In any case – who are you? I have a name and a history. Anyone interested can check my record in struggles against fascism, colonialism and apartheid. I am proud of this record, and I proud of the work I did on the CPGB International Committee, under the chairmanship of a great comrade, the late Jack Woddis.

      My past is an open book. What about yours? What have you ever done to be proud of? Why don’t you tell us your real name?

      As for the indictment by a French judge – I suppose your resistance doesn’t run to resisting the French ruling class and its propaganda.

  16. Morto Che Parla said,

    The good folk of Shiraz Socialist (SS) are not gynophobic and Islamophilic. Though they do support Islamists against a secular nationalist regime. Just like they supproted the Taliban.

    But it’s those of us who defend secular nationalism who are the “Islamophiles”.

    Welcome to the 1984 world of neo-con propaganda.

  17. resistor said,

    I see Fauvet has given up trying to defend the latest object of his strong man worship – the genocidal dictator of Rwanda – and now tries to rewrite the history of the CPGB.

    I gave him credit for being a party member at the time but three years after seeing the tanks roll into Prague, Fauvet decides the CPGB is the party for him. He claims ‘… the CPGB firmly condemned the invasion’

    From the CPGB Wiki

    ‘Divisions in the CPGB concerning the autonomy of the party from Moscow reached a crisis in 1968, when Warsaw pact forces intervened in Czechoslovakia. The CPGB, with memories of 1956 in mind, responded with some very mild criticism of Moscow, refusing to call it an invasion, preferring ‘intervention’. Three days after the invasion, John Gollan said ‘we completely understand the concern of the Soviet Union about the security of the socialist camp … we speak as true friends of the Soviet Union’.’

    That’s what Fauvet calls ‘firm condemnation’ – straight out of the Stalin school of falsification.

  18. jim denham said,

    Excellent letter in today’s ‘Graun’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/where-and-when-protecting-civilians:

    “Andrew Murray (Conflict of self-interest, 22 March:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/22/libya-no-fly-zone-united-nations) calls for “assertive mediation” as an alternative solution to the Libyan crisis. So all we have to do is speak very firmly to Gaddafi and he will come quietly to the conference table. Might we have just the shadow of a whisper as to the possible terms of a mediated compromise? Partition, perhaps? And how would he ensure that the notoriously duplicitous Gaddafi would honour any deal? With a peacekeeping force? Or perhaps a “no-fly zone”? Mr Murray has been driven to this fanciful formula to try and paper over the fact that he has nothing to offer the Libyan people. It is in fact an approach that would be more likely than the current intervention to result in the outcomes he fears.”

    Also, a rare (for the Graun) non-isolationist article that expresses a degree of solidarity with the rebels:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/22/case-for-intervention-still-strong

  19. paul fauvet said,

    You haven’t answered my questions, Resistor. Who are you? Why are you afraid to use your real name? What have you ever done worthy of note in the real world?

    I see that, rather than go to the documents that detail the bitter debates in the CPGB over Czechoslovakia, you prefer to take your Communist history from the pages of Wikipedia.
    What a lazy clown you are!

  20. resistor said,

    If Fauvet reads what is written about me on this site he would understand why I, just like many others, keep my identity to myself. The example of one of your ex-comrades who founded the far-right hate site ‘Harry’s Place’ is an interesting case.

    I can see why you’d want to distract attention from your support for a mass-murdering dictator.

    ps The bitter internal debates of the CPGB are of no interest to anyone.

    • paul fauvet said,

      You keep your identity to yourself, Resistor, because you are a coward. You hide behind a pseudonym because you could not defend your politically illiterate arguments if you had to put your real name and face to them.

      Describing Harry’s Place as “far right” is laughable, and merely indicates that you have no idea what the terms left and right mean.

      And if you’re not interested in the CPGB debates about Stalinism, why did you bring up my membership of the CPGB?

  21. resistor said,

    Fauvet wrote, ‘I would much rather stand with Paul Kagame than with Seamus Milne, the SWP’s fake Lenin, Andy Newman and the other “anti-imperialist” apologists for tyranny.’ and this post is titled, ‘The ‘Guardian”s soft Stalinism’.

    I think it is entirely reasonable to point out

    1. He prefers to stand with a mass murdering dictator than Socialists.
    2. He is a former member of a Stalinist party.
    3. He pretends he doesn’t know about that his beloved Harry’s Place hate site has recently got the EDL seal of approval.

    • paul fauvet said,

      “If Fauvet reads what is written about me on this site he would understand why I, just like many others, keep my identity to myself”, writes Resistor.

      You mean other posters insult you. On the Internet! How unusual! Better run off to mummy and complain that the big boys are bullying you.

      As for Harry’s Place, it’s not “beloved” by me – in fact, I detest much of the garbage that appears in the HP comments boxes. But it is ridiculous to claim that it is a right wing blog. And if you bothered to read it every now and then, you might notice that there is post after post condemning the EDL.

      • Mikey is a Massive Wanker said,

        Wow, a eurocommunist apparatchik turned rightwing apologist. Who’d uv thunk it?

    • modernityblog said,

      I can’t understand why you allow the racist, resistor, to post on your blog.

      I appreciate Libertarian sentiments, but what purpose is served?

      I banned him recently, enough of his filth.

  22. jim denham said,

    WE’ve banned him several times. He always comes crawling back. Sometimes his red/brown ranting serves a certain educative purpose (like that other creep “Morto”), but we’ll ban him again soon. His filthy anti-semitism soon turns the stomach.

    • modernityblog said,

      Jim,

      If you go to Dashboard->Settings (bottom left)->Discussion->then add his IP address and pen-names

      You can also use part IP address, for example 128.77.45 will catch all 128.77.44.1->255 address.

      It is fairly simple.

      Resistor is based in California as far as I can see, he’s probably a member of the American National Socialist Movement, etc

  23. sackcloth and ashes said,

    ReSSistor – ‘Yes the same Paul Kagame who precipitated the genocide in Rwanda by murdering the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi’.

    Lying Strasserite piece of filth:

    Africa Confidential’, 51/2, 22nd January 2010.

    ‘Two years of inquiries by a Rwandan committee of experts have ended in the conclusion widely accepted at the time: the Falcon 50 carrying President Juvénal Habyarimana was shot down on 6 April 1994 by Rwandan Hutu extremist soldiers and there was plenty of warning. The Comité Indépendant d’Experts, chaired by Jean Mutsinzi, heard from Major Bernard Ntuyahaga of the presidential security unit that in 1993 the President had refused to fly even to the funerals of the Burundian and Ivorian presidents.

    That December, the extremist Hutu newspaper Kangura predicted his murder in March, because he had made a power-sharing deal with the Tutsi-led Front Patriotique Rwandais (FPR).

    A confidant of Habyarimana’s Private Secretary, Colonel Elie Sagatwa, said the plot came from a group of extremist officers, Amasasu. Belgian security officials warned Habyarimana that the deal with the FPR was his death warrant. The wife of Jacky Héraud, the French pilot of the doomed executive jet, said her husband had heard about a possible murder attempt and she passed that on to French journalist Sébastien Spitzner. All this contradicts the findings of French Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière; he blamed the FPR.

    Major General Laurent Munyakazi of Rwanda’s former armed forces said that Col. Théoneste Bagosora, head of the Defence Minister’s private office, had foretold the assassination; Bagosora and Hutu fellow officers feared that combining their force with the FPR would mean demobilising 35,000 of their men. The then Chief of Staff, Col. Déogratias Nsabimana, opposed the genocide plans. The former Central Bank Governor, Jean Birara, said that was why Bagosora had at the last minute ordered Nsabimana to board the aeroplane.

    A Belgian corporal serving with the United Nations mission in Rwanda, Mathieu Gerlache, said he saw two bright flashes approach the plane from Kanombe army camp, near the airport. With UN colleagues, British Captain Sean Moorhouse made inquiries in 1994-95 and confirmed that the firing came from Kanombe. Ballistic analysis by the UK Defence Academy supported his view.

    The Hutu officers had anti-aircraft specialists trained in Libya, China, France, North Korea and former Soviet Union and missiles from those countries (except Libya) plus Egypt and Brazil. The UN force believed the army possessed 15 French Mistral missiles and its chief, Canada’s Gen. Roméo Dallaire, said Paris had also delivered Russian SAM-16 missiles. (A French parliamentary mission had claimed in 1998 that Uganda had given the SAMs to the FPR.) Allegations about intercepted FPR radio messages were found to be false.

    The Committee found that the UN had been denied access to Rwandan army sites beforehand, and as soon as the plane was down the massacre of Tutsi began, while aviation boss Stanislas Simbizi, leader of an extremist Hutu party, destroyed files and recordings. The Committee does not claim to know the type of missile but notes that France has the plane’s black box and fragments of the fatal missiles, which were apparently Soviet-made SAM-16s. It would clear the air if someone in Paris said what they must know.’

    And this genocidaire turd pretends that he’s part of the left.

  24. sackcloth and ashes said,

    Looks like someone else could do with being banned for being a moronic troll.

  25. Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers with added vitamins and minerals said,

    two werds: Syria is next

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: