Hilary Clinton says N Korea will face consequences for testing missle

[AvanteRedGarde]

I saw this and it hasn't yet been discussed here. The U.S. is pretty hypocritical for denying N Korea the same ability to conduct war, especially when its obvious that the U.S. is the aggressor worldwide. Just goes to show you how much of an imperialist bully the U.S. really is.


(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)


Talking to reporters in Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that firing a missile for any reason at all would be a “provocative act.” She also warned that such an act would have consequences. She stated that launching a missile would violate a UN resolution barring Korea from any ballistic activity. “We intend to raise this violation of the Security Council resolution, if it goes forward, in the U.N.,” she said. “This provocative action in violation of the U.N. mandate will not go unnoticed and there will be consequences.”

Imperialists and their lackeys are worried that Korea’s preparations to launch a communications satellite between April 4th and 8 are really a cover for the testing of a missile with the capability of reaching Alaska. However, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair stated that all indications are that Korea will be launching a communications satellite, not a missile. Regardless, the U$, South Korea, and Japan have placed pressure on North Korea to refrain from launching a satellite or missile, calling it a violation of the Security Council resolution. Korea rightly says that it has the right to develop its space program.


It is ridiculous that the U$, a country with the greatest military arsenal in the world, that is currently occupying several other nations — including southern Korea, should be telling Korea what it can and cannot do. Korea has every right to develop its missile program as it sees fit. If there is a country that has proven itself so warlike, so aggressive, that it should be disarmed, it is the U$, not Korea. Korea has never gone to war with another country.Yet it is Korea that is maligned by the imperialists and the lackey so-called United Nations...

[Invincible Summer]

The US pretty much wants a monopoly on nuclear arms (or at least an oligopoly with other "trusted" nations) and paints other nations who build them to be "terror threats."

What a fucking joke.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Enter devil's advocate mode

The US will be, essentially, forced to respond.

North Korea agreed not to test, or even develop, long-range missiles after accepting millions of tons of aid from the US following its successful nuke test, along with promising to shut down all nuclear facilities (obviously the blogger in the OP likes to omit certain facts). NK has completely broken both of those promises, choosing instead the path of continued hostility towards the US.

Aside from this, the missile does have the potential to strike the US itself. Instead of offering communication on this 'civilian satellite,' NK has instead chosen the path of non-communication and, furthermore, has jailed two American journalists in a non-related incident, reaffirming their complete inability to address the perceived risks shared by all of its neighbors. Also, Japan has vowed to to shoot down the missile if it enters any part of Japanese airspace (seeing how Japan is practically a US protectorate, fill in the dots).

Clearly, the US has no problems with civilian space exploration, as no attempt was made to thwart the Iranian satellite which was launched earlier this year. Instead, the US fears a country ruled by a single despot who isn't answerable to his own citizens and is now developing long range rockets and nuclear weapons.

If NK wants the prestige of a space exploration program, the US has no problems. NK is delusional, however, if they believe that they do not have to answer certain questions to the international community regarding this and other hostile behaviors.

[pastradamus]

The question here is how do you deal with a country whom has a new Nuclear arsenal with a leadership fit only for the Insane asylum who does not care about his people in the slightest (famine in 1995!). Therefore trade embargo's will be uneffective against someone who already willingly drove his people into famine and exile. On the other hand there's also war as an option but does the US government trust the Patriot anti-missile defense system that much?

[AvanteRedGarde]

The question here is how do you deal with a country whom has a new Nuclear arsenal with a leadership fit only for the Insane asylum who does not care about his people in the slightest (famine in 1995!). Therefore trade embargo's will be uneffective against someone who already willingly drove his people into famine and exile. On the other hand there's also war as an option but does the US government trust the Patriot anti-missile defense system that much?

You talk about it as if your in the drivers seat, if not the side of, imperialism and imperialist states.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The question here is how do you deal with a country whom has a new Nuclear arsenal with a leadership fit only for the Insane asylum who does not care about his people in the slightest (famine in 1995!). Therefore trade embargo's will be uneffective against someone who already willingly drove his people into famine and exile.

My best guess is containment and wait for the fucker to die. Then pray some crazy-ass general doesn't seize the reigns.

It's a very delicate situation, to be sure. While I do not support US imperialism, I do think it may be necessary to have a least 1 US soldier on the border to serve as a 'trip wire,' effectively forcing the US to act if a hostile action against SK is made.


On the other hand there's also war as an option but does the US government trust the Patriot anti-missile defense system that much?

No. But they pretend to in order to justify buying more.

I am actually curious to see if the US can shoot down a missile, to be honest. While it would potentially increase US hegemony, the trade-off would be a world in which the land-based ICBM is potentially obsolete.

[AvanteRedGarde]

The question here is how do you deal with a country which has a new high tech arsenals and who's populations aren't all that concerned about dark skinned foreigners (Iraq, Afghanistan!). Therefore trade will be ineffective against a country which casually uses food as a weapon (Iraq, Sudan, etc)....

:D

[pastradamus]

You talk about it as if your in the drivers seat, if not the side of, imperialism and imperialist states.

Obviously I put myself in Clintons boots and acted it out from there. I ask you in future to not make accusations without understanding the context of the post. Nothing I was talking about there made the slightest impression that I was an imperialist.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Seemed to me like you were working out what the U.S. and NATO should do.


how do you deal

Who is 'you.'


Therefore trade embargo's will be uneffective against someone who already willingly drove his people into famine and exile.

Who else regularly considers trade embargo to be an option besides the imperialists


On the other hand there's also war as an option but does the US government trust the Patriot anti-missile defense system that much?

How are you able to consider 'war as an option,' unless you are doing it from the perspective of someone else, i.e. the U.S.?

[pastradamus]

Seemed to me like you were working out what the U.S. and NATO should do.

Well if one looks into history and as to how the US ever responded in such a situation they would understand that they use one of two main options in this area. Its an educated guess.




Who is 'you.'
Taking something out of context, recycling it and making me akin to Imperialists' is not in the interest of respectable and fair debate.




Who else regularly considers trade embargo to be an option besides the imperialists

Thats exactly what I was getting at.




How are you able to consider 'war as an option,' unless you are doing it from the perspective of someone else, i.e. the U.S.?

I was looking at it from her (Clinton's) perspective.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I was looking at it from her (Clinton's) perspective.

Well, I did originally say, "You talk about it as if your in the drivers seat, if not the side of, imperialism and imperialist states."

This is now confirmed. You admit that you were looking at it from the perspective of Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State of the U.S. government.

[Pogue]

The hypocrisy of the main world powers in regards to nuclear powers is one no one can miss out on, especially as the USA is the only country to set off a serious nuclear weapon in the world in an offensive action. Its insane. This is the typical petty games the puppet rulers of the world play as they square off - who can spend the most of the people's money on useless weapons that cause untold suffering and destruction while the public services ot he respective nations go direly underfunded. Its disgusting.

[Yazman]

Well, I did originally say, "You talk about it as if your in the drivers seat, if not the side of, imperialism and imperialist states."

This is now confirmed. You admit that you were looking at it from the perspective of Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State of the U.S. government.

He also noted that he was playing devils advocate, and I see his point. The actions of North Korea are in violation of international treaties and so this response is actually quite justified.

Also I have to note, that in your "parody" you said this:


Therefore trade will be ineffective against a country which casually uses food as a weapon (Iraq, Sudan, etc)....

Iraq was a dictatorship, not even a leninist one, just a straight up dictatorship, fully compatible with capitalism. Sudan is a country still in the midst of government-sponsored genocide. I hardly think that defending either government is an option.

[Glenn Beck]

Complaining about NK's lack of adherence to certain treaties is some kind of sad joke. These are treaties that have been repeatedly undermined by the activities of the United States, either itself acting in violation or making excuses and exceptions for loyal allies. And now they want to take all that back and act like the law is on their side?! :thumbdown:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, if Washington wants anarchy in foreign relations then it shouldn't complain when another state breaks the rules that it has rendered a dead letter to begin with.

[pastradamus]

Well, I did originally say, "You talk about it as if your in the drivers seat, if not the side of, imperialism and imperialist states."

This is now confirmed. You admit that you were looking at it from the perspective of Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State of the U.S. government.

Yes, I am in the drivers seat because Im really Barrack Obama sitting at home with my laptop in the oval office planning my next step.....please :rolleyes:

As Yazman said, I was playing devils advocate. Thanks about it. No need to get offended.

[AvanteRedGarde]

He also noted that he was playing devils advocate, and I see his point. The actions of North Korea are in violation of international treaties and so this response is actually quite justified.

Also I have to note, that in your "parody" you said this:

"Therefore trade will be ineffective against a country which casually uses food as a weapon (Iraq, Sudan, etc).... "

Iraq was a dictatorship, not even a leninist one, just a straight up dictatorship, fully compatible with capitalism. Sudan is a country still in the midst of government-sponsored genocide. I hardly think that defending either government is an option.

So, according to you, a response, presumable by the U.S. and the world's other imperialist powers, is "quite justified."

Why so (from a revolutionary perspective, not Hilary Clinton's)? Do such actions serve to further the cause of the world's oppressed peoples in any way?? Or are they meant to serve the interest of imperialism?

Think about it.

[Revy]

It's reminiscent of the Cold War to try and act like a communications satellite is a missile. That's what happening more than 50 years ago with Sputnik. North Korea is planning its own space program, actually....

Is it our business if it is a missile? The US should not be the one to tell the whole world who can have nuclear technology, when it has one of the largest nuclear arsenals! Apparently, the rules don't apply to the U.S.....

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

They just don't want North Korea to have anything approaching an effective nuclear deterrent. They'd rather North Korea spend all of it's money on maintaining their massive military so that they can point out that while people go hungry, a quarter of their money is spent on military equipment.


The question here is how do you deal with a country whom has a new Nuclear arsenal with a leadership fit only for the Insane asylum who does not care about his people in the slightest (famine in 1995!). Therefore trade embargo's will be uneffective against someone who already willingly drove his people into famine and exile. On the other hand there's also war as an option but does the US government trust the Patriot anti-missile defense system that much?

What is with attributing the power of a God to the leaders of the "communist" states?


Iraq was a dictatorship, not even a leninist one, just a straight up dictatorship, fully compatible with capitalism. Sudan is a country still in the midst of government-sponsored genocide. I hardly think that defending either government is an option.

So does that mean you agree with placing sanctions on Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, or...?

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I'm not saying anything both power hungery imperialists.I hope they kill each other

[GX.]

The hypocrisy of the US in acting like the word of the UNSC is sacred is astounding.

[GX.]

I'm not saying anything both power hungery imperialists.I hope they kill each other
No, DPRK is not imperialist, despite whatever else you could say about how horrible that regime is. However, you wish imperialist repression on them, which not only makes you an asshole but a tacit supporter of imperialism.

[rednordman]

I dont want to but in and lay a very obvious question, but do any of you believe that eventually, the DPRK will end up going to war with the USA? I mean there is now decades of hostile relations, and the DPRK show no sign of letting up at all. The only reason I put it like that is not because I hate the DPRK, but because we now live in a world where the USA has absolutly everything its own way, and despite the fact that the DPRK is responsible for some atrocites, the USA would never own up to theirs, whether or not the DPRK do like. But despite the DPRK, I am certain that the USA committed and assisted in mass murder in Korea after the war. So why do people strike up a fuss so much about the DPRK, and when it comes to the USA, it gets forgotten very quickly? and regardless whether the DPRK is wrong or right, they keep on pushing the USAs buttons in a world where NO ONE is allowed to.

[pastradamus]

What is with attributing the power of a God to the leaders of the "communist" states?


Because the way the DPRK is run. The massive control he(KIM), one man has over the budget and spending as well as all aspects of social life puts in place the strong possibility for human rights violations and dictates how one should live their lives, what they are to read when they pick up a newspaper, what they learn when they go to school , what the punishment is for speaking out is .etc, etc.

However, You could argue the same point for US imperialism. It would be a correct and accurate argument to suggest the same for the US administration. The US is obviously one and Maybe the biggest enemy against Socialism and Leftism today but this should not mean that we should put all our attacking and questioning energies simply into the system of US imperialism whilst forgetting about the quasi-fascist state of the DPRK and others like Burma and Sudan. They are just as fundamentally opposed to Leftism as US imperialism and should be seen and counted for this.

[Yazman]

So does that mean you agree with placing sanctions on Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, or...?

Your argument reeks of fallacy. I said nothing of the sort, I never even mentioned sanctions. I said there is no reason for us to defend Iraq's government. When reactionaries fight each other - as we are now seeing in the case of North Korea vs the US - it is not our job to support one of them. It is our job to let everybody know that they are both reactionaries and enemies of the people, and that they should be treated as such. Defending NK against the US or vice versa is like choosing Coke over Pepsi, or supporting one of the candidates in a bourgeois election. Its something that we, as communists or anarchists, as revolutionary leftists, should not be doing. We need to be exposing them for who they are, and making sure we teach people that. When reactionaries fight each other, no matter who wins we will still lose. Expose all enemies of the working class for who they are.


So, according to you, a response, presumable by the U.S. and the world's other imperialist powers, is "quite justified."

Why so (from a revolutionary perspective, not Hilary Clinton's)? Do such actions serve to further the cause of the world's oppressed peoples in any way?? Or are they meant to serve the interest of imperialism?

Think about it.

I oppose any attempts at North Korean weaponisation, particularly when they are trying to develop nuclear weapons, for the same reason I oppose the Sudanese governments funds and military being bolstered by Chinese support. Both governments are corrupt and authoritarian, hell NK is a fucking dictatorship - I would like to see both of them toppled and their plans hindered in any way possible. Replacing a dictatorship that would rather build nukes than feed its population (NK), or an authoritarian state that simply allows and supports genocide in the case of Sudan would be a good thing in both cases. I don't see the opposition to genocidal or dictatorial regimes by the international community as imperialism, particularly when there are barely any nations that oppose cracking down on these sorts of governments.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Because the way the DPRK is run. The massive control he(KIM), one man has over the budget and spending as well as all aspects of social life puts in place the strong possibility for human rights violations and dictates how one should live their lives, what they are to read when they pick up a newspaper, what they learn when they go to school , what the punishment is for speaking out is .etc, etc.

I was referring to how "communist" dictators are always blamed for natural disasters and such.



Your argument reeks of fallacy. I said nothing of the sort, I never even mentioned sanctions. I said there is no reason for us to defend Iraq's government. When reactionaries fight each other - as we are now seeing in the case of North Korea vs the US - it is not our job to support one of them. It is our job to let everybody know that they are both reactionaries and enemies of the people, and that they should be treated as such. Defending NK against the US or vice versa is like choosing Coke over Pepsi, or supporting one of the candidates in a bourgeois election. Its something that we, as communists or anarchists, as revolutionary leftists, should not be doing. We need to be exposing them for who they are, and making sure we teach people that. When reactionaries fight each other, no matter who wins we will still lose. Expose all enemies of the working class for who they are.
I misunderstood Avante's statement. I thought he was referring to western countries casually using food as a weapon, such as in Iraq.

[Das war einmal]

I think the people who support the DPRK to the fully are rare here. But we all should condemn the aggression the US and their lackeys against North Korea. Remember, the South was a dictatorship till '89 as well.

[pastradamus]

I was referring to how "communist" dictators are always blamed for natural disasters and such.



What natural disaster? Its this philosophy of Juche which Kim uses. Its a policy of National self-reliance which basically is the same as the disastrous self-sufficiency policies carried out by western governments in the 1930's. By not attempting to import extra food aid he(kim) is responsible for the famine. Even today 1 in 3 in North Korea is malnourished.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Around 1 in 3 people throughout the world are malnourished. What's your point?

[Das war einmal]

What natural disaster? Its this philosophy of Juche which Kim uses. Its a policy of National self-reliance which basically is the same as the disastrous self-sufficiency policies carried out by western governments in the 1930's. By not attempting to import extra food aid he(kim) is responsible for the famine. Even today 1 in 3 in North Korea is malnourished.

Well yeah North Korea ofcourse is not able to become completely self-reliable, although the idea behind it is good. Anyway, even if the system of self-reliance was not followed North Korea would still be in a dire position because nearly no country allows trade

[pastradamus]

Around 1 in 3 people throughout the world are malnourished. What's your point?

Look at the conditions of the average worker in South korea and tell me who's worse off?

[pastradamus]

Well yeah North Korea ofcourse is not able to become completely self-reliable, although the idea behind it is good. Anyway, even if the system of self-reliance was not followed North Korea would still be in a dire position because nearly no country allows trade

I see your point, but could he not turn to China? They are responsible for getting him out of that mess anyway but he never asked for relief aid off them.

[AvanteRedGarde]

S Korea is a trophy nation propped up to confuse the workers of oppressed nation. That said, wages in S korea are almost half that in the U.S.

[pastradamus]

Noted and a good point. But to simply look at the varying standards of working class conditions here, no self-respecting Leftist could ever support workers conditions in either state.

[manic expression]

Noted and a good point. But to simply look at the varying standards of working class conditions here, no self-respecting Leftist could ever support workers conditions in either state.

That's reasonable, but I don't think anyone is really promoting the living conditions of the working class in the DPRK. The biggest issue is imperialist influence IMO. In addition, it's important to realize that the situation in the DPRK is not truly of its own making, it's been the victim of a lot of aggressive tactics from capitalist forces.

As for the living conditions there, it's a tragedy to be sure. However, let's remember that the DPRK, IIRC, was outperforming South Korea economically until a few decades ago when a change in leadership coincided with a loss in trade partners, etc (come to think of it, it'd be nice to see some stats on this, but I'm almost positive that the famines and such are quite recent developments).

[AvanteRedGarde]

Noted and a good point. But to simply look at the varying standards of working class conditions here, no self-respecting Leftist could ever support workers conditions in either state.

Sure, but look at the bigger picture, the long term, whose fault is it? Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il, the party around them, their Juche philosophy, etc, or capitalist-imperialism, which have made every attempt to demonize and destabilize revolutionary attempts by any means. N Korea is simply a recalcitrat hold out- A noble attempt at national liberation and creative application of revolutionary principles in the face of constant imperialist agression. So the ruling party became increasingly 'ruling' and degenerate in this process? Sure, finding ever new creative ways to praise the leader is not socialism. However, that doesn't mean we should strengthen capitalist imperialism- the maim oppressive system today- by supporting the overthrow of the North Korean state.

[Das war einmal]

I see your point, but could he not turn to China? They are responsible for getting him out of that mess anyway but he never asked for relief aid off them.


As far as I know, the DPRK imports tons of food out of China nowadays

[NecroCommie]

OOooh! So Korea will face consequenses huh? I wonder what those cosequenses are. Non-stop staring? Harsh words?

Honestly: After Iraq and Afghanistan, and especially during Iraq and Afghanistan, US has no credibility to threath any nation with a real army, since the US can not even win against joke armies.

I wish some real threath would rise against N-Korea, but so far the western capitalists have been too afraid to take any real move against N-Korea. Just declaring them evil and making it look bad doesn't help korean workers.

[AvanteRedGarde]

WTFRUTB!

The U.S. overthrew two governments and killed millions of people. Predictably, oppression and aggression leads to people's resistance, which the U.S. will never be able to defeat militarily.

But I guess to "M-L" cheerleaders for imperialist aggression, the old regime and current resistance are all the same: "joke armies." Fucking racist.:mad:

I wish a real threat would arise western imperialism and the U.S.:mad:

[pastradamus]

Sure, but look at the bigger picture, the long term, whose fault is it? Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il, the party around them, their Juche philosophy, etc, or capitalist-imperialism, which have made every attempt to demonize and destabilize revolutionary attempts by any means. N Korea is simply a recalcitrat hold out- A noble attempt at national liberation and creative application of revolutionary principles in the face of constant imperialist agression. So the ruling party became increasingly 'ruling' and degenerate in this process? Sure, finding ever new creative ways to praise the leader is not socialism. However, that doesn't mean we should strengthen capitalist imperialism- the maim oppressive system today- by supporting the overthrow of the North Korean state.

Firstly, I do not support American Imperialism in any form up to and including trade embargo's and Military action - it is unbecoming of any leftist to support this. The US government has made every attempt to ruin the international reputation of the DPRK in a catalogue of varying forms from the recent Nuclear missile news to putting it on the list of "the axis of evil" and declaring it a "terrorist" state. Fiscally, the DPRK was very reliant on its trading partner - the soviet union. When the USSR broke-up it had drastic consequences for North Korea, that much is certain. Along with recent pressures from the US on China which have led to slightly smaller amounts of trade and aid between the DPRK and China in recent years.

Secondly, I also believe it is unbecoming of any leftist to show any form of support for the DPRK. This philosophy of "Juche" is a complete joke and it just goes to show how the brainwashing tactics of the leadership of both Kim il-sung and Kim Jung-il are counter-revolutionary and what their real agenda is with relation to the working class. Juche involves a complete re-indoctrination and reeducation of every citizen . For example in 1997 a new Calendar was introduced starting in the year 1912 the date of birth of Kim Il-sung, as year 1. The Fact that many North Korean people believe that Kim-il-Sung "created the world", and that Kim-Jong-il can "control the weather" is a complete nightmare to any leftist. I will say however, that though I detest these individuals and their party members that I do not condone sanctions or war against a country who's working class are in such a terrible state as it is - not to mention our hatred of imperialism.

It is often that we hear so-called leftists defending this state simply because they are opposed to US policies and Imperialism. This whole " your enemy is my friend" tripe should be cut out. Both the US and the DPRK are enemies of our varying Ideals and oppose our ideological fundamentals as leftists.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Which one is standing more in our way of the world we'd like to create.

[teenagebricks]

Stalinism or capitalist imperialism, pick your poison, I really doubt it makes much of a difference.

[Mike Morin]

Stalinism or capitalist imperialism, pick your poison, I really doubt it makes much of a difference.

Here's the dilemma:

It took two Fascist Forces to defeat a third Fascist Force, whose figurehead was Hitler.

[Woland]

Here's the dilemma:

It took two Fascist Forces to defeat a third Fascist Force, whose figurehead was Hitler.

Nice avatar.

[The Author]

Indeed, it suits him perfectly.

Anyway, the U.S. government of course has no right to speak about the defense capabilities of a sovereign state such as the D.P.R.K., considering that military saber-rattling is the middle name of Yankee imperialism. The fact that there are some members here who think taking an aggressive stance against a country merely because you don't agree with its ideology or application of it makes me cringe. Just because you disagree with the ideological principles of a country or movement, doesn't mean you jump on the imperialist bandwagon and help them engage in the harassment and coercion of the country in question.

[pastradamus]

Which one is standing more in our way of the world we'd like to create.

They are both standing in our way. It dosent matter which one is the greater presence. You cant be apologetic for something which is the lesser of two evils by saying the bigger threat is the bigger problem and forgetting about the lighter option.

[pastradamus]

Indeed, it suits him perfectly.

Anyway, the U.S. government of course has no right to speak about the defense capabilities of a sovereign state such as the D.P.R.K., considering that military saber-rattling is the middle name of Yankee imperialism. The fact that there are some members here who think taking an aggressive stance against a country merely because you don't agree with its ideology or application of it makes me cringe. Just because you disagree with the ideological principles of a country or movement, doesn't mean you jump on the imperialist bandwagon and help them engage in the harassment and coercion of the country in question.



Come again?
Nobody here has been attacking any country or its citizens. We have however been blasting on about the leadership of the Varying states. The leaders of a state and its members form the ideology of the said nation and choose which laws and rules to follow. So by having ideological differences with the said rulers then it is completely acceptable to ask questions of him/her based on ideals and actions. Its not as if anyone here has burned an American/DPRK's flag in this thread.

[BobKKKindle$]

You cant be apologetic for something which is the lesser of two evils by saying the bigger threat is the bigger problem and forgetting about the lighter optionIt's not about siding with the lesser evil, and I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that North Korea is an example that Marxists should ever attempt to replicate when we construct socialism in the future. It is, however important to point out that many of the problems suffered by the North Korean people are not the result of the government's policies but can instead be attributed to external factors that are entirely beyond the control of the state, such as weather conditions, the country's natural topography, and the ongoing embargo. This does not amount to pretending that the DPRK is any kind of workers state, or apologizing for the ruling bureaucracy, but challenging the claims of the imperialists is an important duty for Marxists, because if we allow these claims to retain their legitimacy it will be easier for the imperialists to justify their aggressive maneuvers as actions that are designed to improve the conditions of the North Korean people and rescue them from an evil government that (so the argument of the imperialists goes) purposefully starves peasants in order to support the consumption of an all-powerful leader. In other words, we need to expose the true nature of relations between the US and North Korea - a struggle between an oppressed nation and the world's most powerful imperialist country - and destroy the myth of benevolent imperialism. In the event that North Korea comes under direct assault from Japanese and American imperialism it will be obligatory for Marxists to take the side of the oppressed and support the struggles of the North Korean people against imperialism, while also building for revolution within the ranks of the army and proletariat.

Of course, the fair-weather Marxists will refuse to adopt an anti-imperialist position, because the think that if a country is impoverished and ruled by an oppressive government our duty to combat imperialism suddenly disappears.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

OOooh! So Korea will face consequenses huh? I wonder what those cosequenses are. Non-stop staring? Harsh words?

Honestly: After Iraq and Afghanistan, and especially during Iraq and Afghanistan, US has no credibility to threath any nation with a real army, since the US can not even win against joke armies.

No, the reason the US has trouble in those countries (and that trouble is, let's face it, greatly exxagerated) is because they are facing "joke armies", not in spite of that fact.

In other words, it's a lot easier for the US to win a war involving tanks, jets, ships, etc, as opposed to crazed islamists who strap TNT to themselves before blowing up the local market or have a fancy for deforming young girls with acid.


Of course, the fair-weather Marxists will refuse to adopt an anti-imperialist position, because the think that if a country is impoverished and ruled by an oppressive government our duty to combat imperialism suddenly disappears.I think it has more to do when said country maintains a massive military while the people are starving, and then begins to experiment with long-range rockets and nuclear armament. They already agreed to end nuclear enrichment for millions of tons of aid and have completely torn that agreement to shreds. They, or, better yet, why They? He is a lunatic who has never put the interests of his people before military agenda. I suppose it's the same in the US where we don't have UHC, but they don't even have hospitals.

Whether joining a united Korea or the PRC or even the USA, I do not believe there can be much doubt that any would be preferable to the reckless incompetence the Kim Monarchy has brought and ostensibly maintained for decades. And it's nothing more than that, and we should refer to it as an absolute monarchy and nothing of the left.

[BobKKKindle$]

No, the reason the US has trouble in those countries (and that trouble is, let's face it, greatly exxagerated) is because they are facing joke armies, not in spite of that fact.Why do you describe these armies (armies is not actually the right word here because it infers a certain degree of unity and coordination, whereas resistance movements generally involve a range of different groups and organizations with radically different, and, at times, mutually oppossed agendas) as "joke armies"? These armies don't conform to standard forms of organization and that's part of the reason why they have been so successful in fighting against imperialism and forcing the US and other imperialist countries to withdraw and allow oppressed peoples to reclaim their national independence - the Vietcong and FLN both employed decentralized command structures and merged with the civilian population because they recognized that open confrontation with the imperialists and a centralized command would have led to both of these movements being eliminated and their supporters executed during the early stages of the liberation struggle. The term "joke armies" is an insult to the workers who smashed imperialism in the past, and are fighting imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan today.


They already agreed to end nuclear enrichment for millions of tons of aid and have completely torn that agreement to shreds.You should take a look at the history of US-DPRK relations before you make such ignorant remarks. The US has consistently refused to honor the terms of agreements that the DPRK has entered into - they did not provide food aid or nuclear reactors to the DPRK despite their obligation to do so under the terms of the 1994 Agreed Framework in exchange for the DPRK's guarantee that they would freeze their polonium enrichment program, and more recently the US has refused to withdraw the DPRK from its list of countries that sponsor terrorism until the DPRK eliminates its nuclear arsenal, a demand which basically amounts to the DPRK leaving itself vulnerable to imperialist attack and allowing the US and all the other imperialist powers to maintain their nuclear monopoly.

[BobKKKindle$]

Whether joining a united Korea or the PRC or even the USA, I do not believe there can be much doubt that any would be preferable to the reckless incompetence the Kim Monarchy has brought and ostensibly maintained for decadesIf this is the case then surely you would welcome a US invasion of the DPRK, since, according to you, occupation and submission to American capital would be better than the DPRK being able to retain its political independence. Let's keep in mind that this notion of imperialism having a benevolent role is the same argument that has been used to justify the denial of political independence and the oppression of colonized peoples ever since capitalism entered its imperialist phase during the 19th century - it was used by the British in Africa, and it was used more recently in the months leading up to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In reality, of course, imperialism is never benevolent, and always results in nations enduring a level of oppression and exploitation greater than anything they would ever encounter under an independent bourgeois state, however repressive. The fact that you refer to North Korea as a monarchy - completely ignoring the actual functioning of the political system, including the political role of the armed forces - just shows how incapable you are of participating in this discussion.

[pastradamus]

Of course, the fair-weather Marxists will refuse to adopt an anti-imperialist position, because the think that if a country is impoverished and ruled by an oppressive government our duty to combat imperialism suddenly disappears.

Firstly, I would like to ask people here to drop the war attitude. North Korea is not going to be attacked. Its too strong militarily for the US to risk and more to the point it has Nuclear capabilities, moreover the US government is militarily bankrupt from the constant warring in Afghanistan and Iraq (thats why Obama has gone running to NATO for more help). The US government uses its biggest weapon in this area which is embargoist tactic's - that much is obvious. Our duty to combat Imperialism never disappears - they certainly are the biggest threat to socialist today. Im far from a fair-weather Marxist and I believe any Marxist who sides with the DPRK because of the threat of US imperialism is a fair-weather Marxist themselves.

US Imperialism is completely sadistic and greed driven. It is the highest mutation of capitalism and should be opposed in all forms. For example Cuba, a country I admire myself is being hemmed down by an embargo. Despite all this they have one of the worlds best health care systems as well as the highest literacy rate to boast about. It as a state shows how good Marxism can work.

I dont believe that challenging the ruling regime in the DPRK means im in any way allowing the US government to justify an attack on the state itself. I believe it is my right as a leftist to question state's which im opposed to regardless of any set of preconditions due to the jungle of international situations and politics. Just an example - I feel I can question Saddam Hussein without ever disconnecting myself from the strife and struggle of the Iraqi people and without glorifying US imperialism - which is rotten to the core.

I will not accept the argument that the Famine of the 90's in the DPRK was unavoidable due to Imperialist embargo's. Kim jung-il still felt the need to purchase an extensive amount of home entertainment and motor vehicles while this was happening so its obvious he cared little about it. I will however say the embargo's did their damage more than ever during the year of 2007 when there was massive flooding and it restricted incoming aid to an extent.

[pastradamus]

Why do you describe these armies (armies is not actually the right word here because it infers a certain degree of unity and coordination, whereas resistance movements generally involve a range of different groups and organizations with radically different, and, at times, mutually oppossed agendas) as "joke armies"? These armies don't conform to standard forms of organization and that's part of the reason why they have been so successful in fighting against imperialism and forcing the US and other imperialist countries to withdraw and allow oppressed peoples to reclaim their national independence - the Vietcong and FLN both employed decentralized command structures and merged with the civilian population because they recognized that open confrontation with the imperialists and a centralized command would have led to both of these movements being eliminated and their supporters executed during the early stages of the liberation struggle. The term "joke armies" is an insult to the workers who smashed imperialism in the past, and are fighting imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan today.




I think he was describing them as a joke when compared to the sheer size and strength of the US army.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Why do you describe these armies (armies is not actually the right word here because it infers a certain degree of unity and coordination, whereas resistance movements generally involve a range of different groups and organizations with radically different, and, at times, mutually oppossed agendas) as "joke armies"? These armies don't conform to standard forms of organization and that's part of the reason why they have been so successful in fighting against imperialism and forcing the US and other imperialist countries to withdraw and allow oppressed peoples to reclaim their national independence - the Vietcong and FLN both employed decentralized command structures and merged with the civilian population because they recognized that open confrontation with the imperialists and a centralized command would have led to both of these movements being eliminated and their supporters executed during the early stages of the liberation struggle. The term "joke armies" is an insult to the workers who smashed imperialism in the past, and are fighting imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

First of all, he used the term joke armies in reference to the groups fighting in Iraq.

Second, the Viet Cong was, militarily, a colossal failure, whose effectiveness was essentially wiped out following the Tet offensive. It's loose structure made it easy prey for the united US-South Vietnamese forces who, following their military, if not aesthetic, victory of Tet quickly smashed through and removed all VC-liberated zones from South Vietnam. Following this disaster the NVA was forced to change strategy and begin moving through Cambodia to supply their troops. To credit the VC with anythig but a secondary role is misleading; Vietnam would still be French is that's the only military the independence movement had.

This is different than Iraq, where the 'resistance' can't even launch guerrilla war. They strap TNT to themselves and blow up markets in area's of town that are predominately of the other religion. I personally find that disgusting no matter the cause and hope that all are intercepted and dealt with. Also, unlike in Vietnam the US has already agreed to leave and has a scheldule the Iraqi govt enforces.

As for Afghanistan, well, I hope that anyone who is siding with al-Qaeda or the hard-line Taliban finds themselves on the business end of some firepower, Imperialist or otherwise.


You should take a look at the history of US-DPRK relations before you make such ignorant remarks. The US has consistently refused to honor the terms of agreements that the DPRK has entered into - they did not provide food aid or nuclear reactors to the DPRK despite their obligation to do so under the terms of the 1994 Agreed Framework in exchange for the DPRK's guarantee that they would freeze their polonium enrichment program,

Well, yes, the GOP came to power in Congress in 1994 and tried to stop payments. But it turned out teh biggest cause of the breakdown was due to the fact that there was some intelligence coming in about how NK was still enriching uranium.

These charges were vehemently denied by the North Koreans, until, of course, they were using a nuclear detonation to blackmail the west for more aid.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If this is the case then surely you would welcome a US invasion of the DPRK, since, according to you, occupation and submission to American capital would be better than the DPRK being able to retain its political independence. Let's keep in mind that this notion of imperialism having a benevolent role is the same argument that has been used to justify the denial of political independence and the oppression of colonized peoples ever since capitalism entered its imperialist phase during the 19th century - it was used by the British in Africa, and it was used more recently in the months leading up to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In reality, of course, imperialism is never benevolent, and always results in nations enduring a level of oppression and exploitation greater than anything they would ever encounter under an independent bourgeois state, however repressive.

No, I never suggested that conflict would be the most productive way to remove certain elements from power. I do not believe we should allow ourselves to be blackmailed, at the same time.

Secondly, unlike the British in Africa and elsewhere America has already agreed to leave Iraq. The debate which remains is, Does the Bourgeois republic in Iraq provide more or less freedom, both political and economic, than hat which existed under the previous regime? Secondly, was the cost worth it?

There may be no such thing as benevolent imperialism, but pretending there is a benevolent dictator or any other such rubbish is absurd.


The fact that you refer to North Korea as a monarchy - completely ignoring the actual functioning of the political system, including the political role of the armed forces - just shows how incapable you are of participating in this discussion.

The political role of the armed forces is to protect the state. Which happens to be ruled by one man. Who is the son of the last ruler.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think he was describing them as a joke when compared to the sheer size and strength of the US army.

No, it was just because the guy I was responding to did.

Though, I do think some large elements of the resistance in Iraq/Afghanistan is kind of a sick joke. What I mean is, if someone has a problem with US/NATO occupation and decides to actually target US/NATO forces or even collaborationist forces, I have no problem and understand the motive. It's the targeting of schools, markets, etc etc, which has no goal except to make the country as shitty as possible, that I strongly object to.

[Yazman]

I can't believe people still support North Korea - its a fucking dictatorship that lets its people starve while they build up their military. There's no reason to defend them. Even capitalism can provide the workers with a higher standard of living than the hellish dictatorship they have.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well, for those who missed it NK launched its missile. Also, Obama gave a speech in the Czech Republic comdemning the launch.

I was reading about it on CNN (which, yes, is Pro-Zionist but anyway), and found this a little interesting:


Despite criticism by the U.S. and other nations, plans to launch the rocket had been applauded by political parties and organizations in various countries, North Korea's news agency reported Sunday.
A secretariat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union blasted the U.S. on Tuesday for its "outrageous interference in the internal affairs" of North Korea, the agency reported.Question: Has the NK leadership broken the news (to the people) about how the CPSU kind of doesn't exist anymore? :confused:

I mean, if they still believe the CPSU is around and supporting them on the world stage do they still think the land mass of Eurasia would fight a war with the US for them? Just curious.

Anyone else find it a little humorous perhaps? You know, every country in the world, starting with China, is criticizing NK so now they...make up some imaginary friends :lol:

Ugh it'd probably be a little more funny if it wasn't plausible :(

Link
(http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/05/us.nkorea.reaction/index.html)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

One other thing: The first accomplishment of this launch will be to push the South Koreans into the new military agreement with the US.

So far I guess that's +1 for Imperialism? :confused:

[pastradamus]

I can't believe people still support North Korea - its a fucking dictatorship that lets its people starve while they build up their military. There's no reason to defend them. Even capitalism can provide the workers with a higher standard of living than the hellish dictatorship they have.

Exactly, its the actual standard of living and the down-to-earth rationality of these standards that count. While a proper leftist approach would increase the standard of living in the DPRK and do a good job of things Kim jung-il has basically deteriorated the Working class and created a bunch of brainwashed serfs.

[Yazman]

Question: Has the NK leadership broken the news (to the people) about how the CPSU kind of doesn't exist anymore?

I mean, if they still believe the CPSU is around and supporting them on the world stage do they still think the land mass of Eurasia would fight a war with the US for them? Just curious.

Anyone else find it a little humorous perhaps? You know, every country in the world, starting with China, is criticizing NK so now they...make up some imaginary friends

Ugh it'd probably be a little more funny if it wasn't plausible

Link

HOLY SHIT. I hadn't seen that particular gem.. maybe the author doesn't know the soviet union collapsed almost 20 years ago!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Anyway, the U.S. government of course has no right to speak about the defense capabilities of a sovereign state such as the D.P.R.K., considering that military saber-rattling is the middle name of Yankee imperialism. The fact that there are some members here who think taking an aggressive stance against a country merely because you don't agree with its ideology or application of it makes me cringe. Just because you disagree with the ideological principles of a country or movement, doesn't mean you jump on the imperialist bandwagon and help them engage in the harassment and coercion of the country in question.


Nobody is saying this or making this argument at all.

The issue at hand involves the ability to wipe, potentially, hundreds of thousands of people into dust, something that was so horrible nobody's done it since the year of it's inception. Something so horrible it ended mankind's greatest conflict and prevented a world war from ever happening again.

Now, that power at the hands of Kim Jong Il makes me cringe a little bit.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

HOLY SHIT. I hadn't seen that particular gem.. maybe the author doesn't know the soviet union collapsed almost 20 years ago!

I know...I have no idea what to make of it.

[Jia]

Oh, Hillary clinton and all her power is going to be annoyed now.

[Yazman]

Nobody is saying this or making this argument at all.

The issue at hand involves the ability to wipe, potentially, hundreds of thousands of people into dust, something that was so horrible nobody's done it since the year of it's inception. Something so horrible it ended mankind's greatest conflict and prevented one from ever happening again.

Now, that power at the hands of Kim Jong Il makes me cringe a little bit.

Yeah, it really is quite a horrific thought.

[BobKKKindle$]

As for Afghanistan, well, I hope that anyone who is siding with al-Qaeda or the hard-line Taliban finds themselves on the business end of some firepower, Imperialist or otherwise.Then you should be aware that increasingly large numbers of Afghan people are beginning to turn towards the Taleban and other rebel movements because the occupation and US-backed government have failed to achieve any of the things it set out to do (or promised to do) when the invasion was being carried out in 2001, and, however much we may despise the religious ideology of the Taleban, and the way women and other vulnerable minorities are treated in areas under Taleban control, the Taleban is able to deliver stability, which, given the recent experiences of the Afghan people, is seen as sufficient reason to back the resistance. In view of this, your demand that supporters of the Taleban be faced with violence is synonymous with wishing violence on the Afghan people.


Secondly, unlike the British in Africa and elsewhere America has already agreed to leave Iraq.The so-called withdrawal agreement will actually result in 50,000 troops being left in Iraq because these troops are not classified as combat regiments, and the troops that are being moved are scheduled to be re-deployed in Afghanistan in order to strengthen the occupation and defeat the resistance. In other words, there's no withdrawal at all.


They strap TNT to themselves and blow up markets in area's of town that are predominately of the other religion.Suicide attacks do take place in Iraq, but it's absurd to suggest that all or even most of the attacks that are organized by the resistance take the form of suicide attacks, because these attacks, by definition, result in the deaths of both the victims and the attacker, such that the resistance would need to constantly find new adherents in order to retain its current size and strength, let alone overpower the US occupation. You also present a reductionist account of the situation in Iraq by suggest that most of the attacks are sectarian in nature - the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of attacks are directed either against coalition forces or the armed forces of the puppet government (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm)) although it is in the interests of the occupation powers to portray Iraq as a country that would instantly fall into sectarian war as soon as withdrawal took place because this provides a rationale for these powers retaining a military presence there - in fact, the notion that Iraq is an inherently unstable country that needs a foreign-controlled government to manage its different ethnic and religious groups is the exact same argument that was used by the British state when Iraq was part of the British empire. In truth, whatever sectarian violence and animosity currently exists in Iraq is at least partly the result of decisions undertaken by the occupation, in particular the ongoing transfer of funds and materials to the Sunni militias, and the ban place on all former Ba'ath party members being admitted into public-sector jobs.


The political role of the armed forces is to protect the state. Which happens to be ruled by one man. Who is the son of the last ruler.On the contrary, in any country the armed forces are also able to exert control over the civilian government, by virtue of the fact that any government is powerful only insofar as it can maintain its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. There are some commentators who have even suggested that attempts to reform the DPRK's political and economic system may be facing opposition from the military who want to retain their dominant political role, despite receiving support from Kim Jong-Il. The fact that the current head of state is the son of the previous leader is not by itself evidence that North Korea is a monarchy, especially if we understand monarchy not merely as a political apparatus but also as part of a feudal mode of production, because it is common in many countries for multiple generations of a single family to be active at the apex of the political system, the most obvious example of this being the US, and yet these countries are never accused of being a monarchy.


Does the Bourgeois republic in Iraq provide more or less freedom, both political and economic, than hat which existed under the previous regime? Secondly, was the cost worth it?The only way you could see the current regime in Iraq as offering more freedom is if you adopted a completely idealist and bourgeois understanding of what freedom is. Marxists always draw a distinction between freedom in the abstract, and the actual conditions in which people live - the fact that the Iraqi constitution now includes a clause guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly does not mean that the majority of Iraq's population is actually capable of enjoying these freedoms, and can be seen as genuinely free, because the ability of any individual to take advantage of a given freedom will always depend on their economic and social circumstances, particularly whether they are in a position of dependence on others through a wage-labour relationship, or whether they are independent. I would argue that, despite the oppressive nature of the Ba'ath regime, Iraqis were far more free under the Sadaam government, in that their ability to exercise control over their lives and pursue the development of their talents was greater than it is currently. The broader social and economic impacts of the invasion - power shortages, a collapsing education system, poor availiability of healthcare, a brain drain resulting from professionals and intellectuals fleeing to surrounding countries - are well known and require no elaboration here.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Then you should be aware that increasingly large numbers of Afghan people are beginning to turn towards the Taleban and other rebel movements because the occupation and US-backed government have failed to achieve any of the things it set out to do (or promised to do) when the invasion was being carried out in 2001, and, however much we may despise the religious ideology of the Taleban, and the way women and other vulnerable minorities are treated in areas under Taleban control, the Taleban is able to deliver stability, which, given the recent expriences of the Afghan people, is seen as sufficient reason to back the resistance. In view of this, your demand that supporters of the Taleban be faced with violence is synonymous with wishing violence on the Afghan people.

I agree, the US failed to live up to its promise, chiefly, doing away with the Taliban, which we can clearly see from those early days in 2001 do not accurately represent the majority in Afghanistan. Unfortunately Iraq was a more pressing need, or so we're told.

But seriously, I don't see how a revolutionary or a leftist can accept repression because it ensures stability. That is what Imperialism is all about, on a global scale--ensuring stability and making sure all conform to the status quo. In fact, it's a word commonly used by the Pentagon, along with it's evil twin instability which probably means some force may be needed. That (stability) is the excuse of many a repressive regime throughout the ages.


The so-called withdrawal agreement will actually result in 50,000 troops being left in Iraq because these troops are not classified as combat regiments, and the troops that are being moved are scheduled to be re-deployed in Afghanistan in order to strengthen the occupation and defeat the resistance. In other words, there's no withdrawal at all.

But those 50k can be removed by the Iraqi govt if it so chooses. It is not like the post-WWII agreements where the US has all say in when it's leaving (never).

Believe it or not, the paradigm has shifted in Iraq. The question many Iraqi's are asking themselves is no longer, When will the Americans leave? but Should the Americans stay longer?

[Yazman]

Then you should be aware that increasingly large numbers of Afghan people are beginning to turn towards the Taleban and other rebel movements because the occupation and US-backed government have failed to achieve any of the things it set out to do (or promised to do) when the invasion was being carried out in 2001, and, however much we may despise the religious ideology of the Taleban, and the way women and other vulnerable minorities are treated in areas under Taleban control, the Taleban is able to deliver stability, which, given the recent experiences of the Afghan people, is seen as sufficient reason to back the resistance. In view of this, your demand that supporters of the Taleban be faced with violence is synonymous with wishing violence on the Afghan people.

I can't believe people on a revolutionary left forum are making this argument to justify totalitarian theocracy! "The taleban may be crushingly oppressive, but at least they make the trains run on time!"

[BobKKKindle$]

I can't believe people on a revolutionary left forum are making this argument to justify totalitarian theocracy! If you read the post that this was in response to, you'll find that the original poster was wishing death on people who support the Taleban. I pointed out that large numbers of Afghan people do see themselves as supporters of the Taleban in spite of what they suffered before the invasion in 2001 because the current situation is even more oppressive than the prospect of living under the Taleban in an independent Afghanistan. I am not supporting theocracy. The question that revolutionaries need to be asking ourselves in all situations of national oppression is whether the ability of the proletariat to liberate itself in both the oppressed and imperialist nation will be enhanced or diminished in the event that the US is expelled and the Taleban able to take control. I would argue that as long as the US remains, anti-imperialist struggle will remain the focal point of political activity, and the Afghan proletariat will remain tied to the wavering bourgeoisie, and for that reason Marxists should give military support to the Taleban, and by military support here I simply mean that, given the choice between the Taleban and NATO, we would prefer military victory for the former, and military defeat for the latter.


I agree, the US failed to live up to its promise, chiefly, doing away with the TalibanYou need to make a distinction between the public reasons for the invasion and the actual factors that influenced the decision-making of the imperialists. The occupation powers aim to eliminate the Taleban only insofar as the Taleban represents an obstacle to the ambitions of these powers in Afghanistan and the surrounding region - NATO has never really cared about what living under the Taleban means for the people of Afghanistan because the members of the alliance have always given support to a whole range of reactionary organizations and states, including Saudi Arabia, and the Mujahideen in the 1980s.


That is what Imperialism is all about, on a global scale--ensuring stability and making sure all conform to the status quo. Imperialism is not about ensuring political stability at all. In fact, imperialism inherently leads to instability because the desire of each imperialist state to accumulate capital and expand its control of the world's resources and markets eventually leads to conflict between rival imperialist powers, in the form of proxy conflicts, or war, as was the case during WW1 and WW2. The underdevelopment of countries that are subject to imperialist oppression (either in the form of direct political control, of informal empire) also provokes resistance, which can manifest itself either through reactionary movements that involve the interests of different classes - exemplified by the Taleban - or progressive organizations such as the Trotskyists in Vietnam.

In any case, as I explained to Yazman, you're obscuring the issue. You said that "anyone who is siding with al-Qaeda or the hard-line Taliban finds themselves on the business end of some firepower, Imperialist or otherwise." This is synonymous with wishing death of the people of Afghanistan, because a large section of the population supports the Taleban.

[Yazman]

If you read the post that this was in response to, you'll find that the original poster was wishing death on people who support the Taleban. I pointed out that large numbers of Afghan people do see themselves as supporters of the Taleban in spite of what they suffered before the invasion in 2001 because the current situation is even more oppressive than the prospect of living under the Taleban in an independent Afghanistan. I am not supporting theocracy. The question that revolutionaries need to be asking ourselves in all situations of national oppression is whether the ability of the proletariat to liberate itself in both the oppressed and imperialist nation will be enhanced or diminished in the event that the US is expelled and the Taleban able to take control. I would argue that as long as the US remains, anti-imperialist struggle will remain the focal point of political activity, and the Afghan proletariat will remain tied to the wavering bourgeoisie, and for that reason Marxists should give military support to the Taleban, and by military support here I simply mean that, given the choice between the Taleban and NATO, we would prefer military victory for the former, and military defeat for the latter.

I've said this before in other thread when people have raised this viewpoint. They are both reactionaries - neither side gives a flying fuck about the proletariat. It isn't our job to take a side! Its our job to inform people that both sides are reactionary. When two enemies fight each other we shouldn't be taking sides but letting the uninformed know that it is in fact two enemies fighting.

I won't "support" either of them.


In any case, as I explained to Yazman, you're obscuring the issue. You said that "anyone who is siding with al-Qaeda or the hard-line Taliban finds themselves on the business end of some firepower, Imperialist or otherwise." This is synonymous with wishing death of the people of Afghanistan, because a large section of the population supports the Taleban.

At least that's how you've extrapolated it to mean. One could also extrapolate your argument to mean that you wish oppression and crushing slavery on the people of Afghanistan because you support the Taleban. Its a ridiculous point and has no real bearing on the argument, unless you're trying to smear the person making the point rather than refuting their actual argument. Because then you can always make a thread in the CC expressing your moral outrage and concern over a poster wishing death on the people of Afghanistan! :O :O :O

Now can we please get back on topic? All this shit about Afghanistan is derailing the topic.

[BobKKKindle$]

They are both reactionaries - neither side gives a flying fuck about the proletariatOf course, in the same way that Hamas, and Hezbollah are reactionary - none of these organizations are revolutionary parties. However, the position of the proletariat, in terms of where its political energies are ultimately going to be directed, will be manifestly different in an Afghanistan that is not occupied by NATO, in the same way that the proletariat will find itself in a different situation depending on whether it is living under a fascist bourgeois state apparatus, or a "democratic" state. This has nothing to do with whether the resistance is reactionary or progressive in its political orientation.


At least that's how you've extrapolated it to meanI haven't extrapolated anything. Let's post the remark again just so everyone can see:

"As for Afghanistan, well, I hope that anyone who is siding with al-Qaeda or the hard-line Taliban finds themselves on the business end of some firepower, Imperialist or otherwise"

I've argued that many of the workers and peasants of Afghanistan are siding with the Taleban, for understandable reasons. This is especially the case in areas where Pashtuns make up a majority or significant proportion of the population, because the Northern Alliance carried out attacks on this ethnic group when it came to power (with the aid of the US) in 2001, allegedly because the Pashtuns benefited under the Taleban prior to the invasion at the expense of other ethnic groups. Nobody has challenged that contention yet. This member hopes that these people - workers and peasants - will be "on the business end of some firepower", i.e. that they will be seriously harmed or killed. This is entirely different from my position, which is to favour the victory of the resistance over the continuation of the occupation - nothing more, nothing less. The position of this member is not dissimilar from those who condemn Hezbollah as a "fascist" organization and wish for the annihilation of that organization's support base, without considering the meaning of fascism, or the kind of people that Hezbollah appeals to - Shia workers. These remarks are pointless and just expose the ignorance of the people who make them.


But those 50k can be removed by the Iraqi govt if it so chooses. It is not like the post-WWII agreements where the US has all say in when it's leaving (never).Except, the government of Iraq lacks any real autonomy, and so in reality the US would easily be able to find a way of maintaining its military presence with the forced consent of the government - threatening to stop aid flows or order its corporations to cancel their contracts are two obvious options.

[Yazman]

I don't really see a problem with what he said. You seem to think that resistance to the coalition occupation is necessarily linked to the taleban - afghans can resist without the taleban, they have done it for centuries (and they continue to do so in the current conflict). Personally I would like to see the Taleban leaders hanged or shot, they have been responsible for crimes against humanity and I will never support them. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Condemning the Taleban and those who support it is not synonymous with condemning the people of Afghanistan. That assertion seems to make out that the Taleban are a proletarian organisation, when they quite clearly are not. There are multiple revolutionary parties and organisations in Afghanistan, some of which do themselves openly condemn the Taleban, and would continue to do so if the taleban manage to evict the coalition.

Resistance to coalition occupation is not inherently a Taleban venture nor should we ever promote dangerous theocrats who would rather see the proletariat stoned to death for heresy than emancipate them.

[BobKKKindle$]

You seem to think that resistance to the coalition occupation is necessarily linked to the taleban - afghans can resist without the taleban, they have done it for centuries.There is no necessary link - i.e. it is theoretically possible that the vanguard of the Afghan proletariat could organize itself as a resistance movement and take the place of the Taleban by combining the struggle against imperialism with other progressive struggles, such as the struggle against patriarchy, and of course the struggle against capitalism. However, notwithstanding the role of semi-progressive bourgeois organizations such as RAWA, the Taleban is by far the most significant section of the resistance, and is attracting increasing support from the Afghan people because of this role. In practical terms, the Taleban is the resistance, and neither you nor anyone else in this thread has been able to disprove my contention - that the Taleban does have an expanding base of popular support. However much we may regret this fact, wishing death on the supporters of the Taleban is wishing death on the peasants and workers of Afghanistan. We should not be happy about this because the victory of the Taleban would not eradicate many forms of oppression and inequality, but the weakness of the left in Afghanistan is partly due to the willingness of many so-called Marxists to side with the Soviet puppet government during the Afghan-Soviet conflict in the 1980s, instead of supporting the resistance struggle.

We've spoken long enough about the Taleban, so let me sum up the issue (and the broader question of national oppression) with two interlinked and easy-to-follow questions:

1. Will the ability of the Afghan proletariat, and the proletariats of all the countries that are involved in the ongoing occupation, to cast off their nationalist prejudices and overthrow capitalism change in the event that NATO suffers a military defeat and is forced to withdraw? In other words, is the occupation, compared with the prospect of Taleban rule (let's face it - living under the Taleban is currently the only real alternative to life under occupation due to the lack of a coherent left) something we should be worried about?

2. Will this change be good - i.e., will the class consciousness of proletariats around the world be strengthened, will the struggle against imperialism in other countries gain a valuable impulse - or will it be bad? If good, then we would have to conclude that Marxists support the struggle that is being led by the Taleban, even though we despise the politics of that organization, and if bad, we should support NATO remaining in Afghanistan.


Condemning the Taleban and those who support it is not synonymous with condemning the people of AfghanistanExcept, this user wrote about those who side with the Taleban, and not just the actual members of the movement itself.

[Yazman]

Except, this user wrote about those who side with the Taleban, and not just the actual members of the movement itself.

I don't see anything wrong with it. They do not need to side with the taleban in order to resist the coalition. If somebody willingly chooses to support dangerous theocrats, well, they have whats coming to them. You seem to be supportive of them because of the different factions resisting the coalition, the taleban are the strongest. Would you still be supportive if they were ethnic supremacists or fascists? What they have to offer is actually worse than capitalism for the proletariat.

I have to say again that this is getting way off topic. There is barely any connection at all to the original topic now.

[BobKKKindle$]

They do not need to side with the taleban in order to resist the coalition. If somebody willingly chooses to support dangerous theocrats, well, they have whats coming to themAfghan workers do not need to look to the Taleban to fight imperialism in the abstract, but concretely, if we look at the actual political and social conditions that are present in Afghanistan today, the Taleban unfortunately is the only option, and that is why people are turning towards the Taleban. It's all very well to talk about the possibility of people resisting occupation through a theoretical progressive organization but until such an organization comes into existence and proves that it can fight against imperialism and not make concessions to the imperialist powers the Taleban will be able to maintain its position as the dominant section of the resistance. This, for the last time, is why it is silly to wish death on the Taleban's supporters, as anyone who analyzes the situation in Afghanistan through a materialist (and not idealist) framework will acknowledge.


Would you still be supportive if they were ethnic supremacists or fascists? What they have to offer is actually worse than capitalism for the proletariat.As Marxists, we always base our positions on what will best allow the proletariat to raise its class consciousness and overthrow capitalism. So when analyzing a situation of national oppression we need to decide whether such a movement coming to power would be progressive (based on the criterion outlined above) or regressive, and I would argue that, unless the circumstances were extremely unusual, the defeat of an imperialist power is always progressive for the proletariat, even if the movement that comes to power as a result is reactionary. In fact, even if the movement in question were fascist, or if the government defending itself from attack were a fascist government, it would still be progressive, because the victory of the imperialist power would lead to the imposition of its own form of fascist dictatorship. These issues are explained in greater depth in Trotsky's document: Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm)


I have to say again that this is getting way off topic. There is barely any connection at all to the original topic now. Actually, I disagree. The people who voice tacit support for the NATO of Afghanistan by suggesting that the situation for the Afghan proletariat and peasantry would be even worse if the Taleban were able to expel the occupation take power are generally the same people who lay all the problems that the people of North Korea have ever suffered at the feet of the regime without considering the impact of the imperialist blockade and the forces stationed south of the border. In both cases we find a wavering position that can easily become outspoken support for imperialism and military intervention on humanitarian grounds, whereas genuine Marxists always support struggles directed against imperialism regardless of whether these struggles are being led by reactionary or progressive organizations, because we acknowledge that the presence of an occupying power and the denial of self-determination (which constitutes the main component of the national question for Marxists) is the main threat to the wellbeing of working people throughout the world, and, more importantly, the main obstacle to the development of class consciousness and the overthrow of capitalism both in nations that are under imperialist occupation (such as Afghanistan) and nations that are complicit in occupation and use their military strength in order to exploit the global south (such as the members of NATO).

Yazman, I outlined the crucial issues surrounding the national question in my previous post, in the form of two questions. I'd be interested to hear your answers.

[Yazman]

As Marxists, we always base our positions on what will best allow the proletariat to raise its class consciousness and overthrow capitalism. So when analyzing a situation of national oppression we need to decide whether such a movement coming to power would be progressive (based on the criterion outlined above) or regressive, and I would argue that, unless the circumstances were extremely unusual, the defeat of an imperialist power is always progressive for the proletariat, even if the movement that comes to power as a result is reactionary. In fact, even if the movement in question were fascist, or if the government defending itself from attack were a fascist government, it would still be progressive, because the victory of the imperialist power would lead to the imposition of its own form of fascist dictatorship. These issues are explained in greater depth in Trotsky's document: Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation

This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. Theocracy and dictatorship are never progressive. It shocks me that you would make the statements you've just made here, because you're essentially giving the stamp of approval to anything, no matter how bad it is, as long as its in opposition to the US or the coalition. Theocratic, dictatorial and occasionally genocidal regimes are never better for the proletariat or progressive. The failure of the Taleban doesn't mean victory for an imperialist power. It means failure for the Taleban. They are of course the largest group in the resistance but with or without them the resistance will continue. At any rate I will never support theocracy.

I don't support the islamic theocrats or the coalition. As I said earlier, when reactionaries fight each other we don't need to get involved - we should make it known to the proletariat that they are both enemies and they are fighting each other - no matter who wins, we lose. We need to inform them of the groups that are progressive and that the way to emancipation is neither through capitalism nor theocracy, fascism, or dictatorship of any kind.


Yazman, I outlined the crucial issues surrounding the national question in my previous post, in the form of two questions. I'd be interested to hear your answers.

I'll be happy to answer them if you make a new topic. But frankly I'm getting beyond tired of discussing this in a thread thats meant to be about North Korea. You're focusing way too much on an analogy and displacing the topic itself. After this post, I'm not going to discuss Afghanistan-related issues in this topic anymore because I'm sick of this derailing the topic.

Make a topic about Afghanistan, or have these posts split off into a topic about it. That would be for the best and it would prevent this topic from being derailed even more.


Actually, I disagree. The people who voice tacit support for the NATO of Afghanistan by suggesting that the situation for the Afghan proletariat and peasantry would be even worse if the Taleban were able to expel the occupation take power

So you ACTUALLY DISAGREE with me on this point? You do actually think things would get better? Because history demonstrates the opposite: the gains made under the soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan were quickly rolled back once the USSR withdrew, and quite drastic rollbacks in general were made when the taleban took power. It would certainly be no different if the same were to happen nowadays, even if the current government is a bourgeois representative democracy. MAKE NO MISTAKE - I do not support the current regime in Afghanistan AT ALL. However, I oppose the taleban completely and utterly just as much as I oppose the occupying force and their puppet government that they have been propping up since the start.


are generally the same people who lay all the problems that the people of North Korea have ever suffered at the feet of the regime without considering the impact of the imperialist blockade and the forces stationed south of the border

The same certainly hasn't happened in Cuba, which has suffered greatly but has also suffered the same conditions as North Korea, but has managed to maintain fully functional healthcare and education services. They never closed down any schools or hospitals to my knowledge, and have managed to feed the population.


Afghan workers do not need to look to the Taleban to fight imperialism in the abstract, but concretely, if we look at the actual political and social conditions that are present in Afghanistan today, the Taleban unfortunately is the only option, and that is why people are turning towards the Taleban. It's all very well to talk about the possibility of people resisting occupation through a theoretical progressive organization but until such an organization comes into existence

Theoretical? Are you saying they don't exist? There are a few parties in Afghanistan that have been quite successful in the past, and are still working to resist. The taleban and islamist groups in general have been popular for decades now. They fought the soviet regime until they were forced to withdraw, and they are now fighting capitalists. There have been multiple viable non-theocratic options. The interests of the Taleban certainly do not represent the interests of the Afghan people as you seem to think.


and proves that it can fight against imperialism and not make concessions to the imperialist powers the Taleban will be able to maintain its position as the dominant section of the resistance. This, for the last time, is why it is silly to wish death on the Taleban's supporters, as anyone who analyzes the situation in Afghanistan through a materialist (and not idealist) framework will acknowledge.

The Taleban also don't seen to have as much support as you claim they do. The Afghan Communist Party (Maoist) writes the following:

http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/on_situ_tal.html


How do the people see them?

The Pashtun masses are mainly against the occupiers and the puppet regime. The Taleban have been able to take advantage of this opposition – for example, to rely on them for logistics and to some extent recruit among them. But for various reasons, including the present Taleban slogans, the Pashtun masses don’t play an active part in the war. The fact is that the blind religious slogans that were once used against the Soviets and their puppet regime have little force against the US and its puppet regime. There are two reasons for that. One is that the US was closely allied with the Mojahedeen during the resistance against the Soviets [built as an anti-communist crusade, even though the USSR had long ceased to be socialist], and the US can’t be mistaken for communists. Secondly, the current puppet regime is an Islamic regime. These two factors work together and have weakened the religious motivation for resistance to the occupiers. The Taleban can’t rally support among the non-Pashtun masses, who are solidly against them. In fact, one reason for the extensive capitulation to occupiers and the puppet regime among non-Pashtun is a fear of a Taleban come-back. But among the non-Pashtuns, those who are against the occupiers and the puppet regime do not support Taleban.


Are the Taleban present only in Pashtun areas?

Recently they seem to have a presence in other areas too. But even in those areas they rely on the local Pashtun population. When they were in power, the Taleban never appealed to anyone other than Pushtuns. And now their support is limited exclusively to Pashtuns.


The Taleban’s war has little active support from the masses. Even the very religious Pashtun people who are to some extent close to them often don’t actively support them. In sum, their war has no clear perspective.


They do not have the active support of the imperialist forces that oppose the US, they don’t have the support of the bulk of the local exploiting forces, and even as a reactionary resistance they are not likely to advance much more. Furthermore, they are severely restricted because they have identified themselves with Pashtun nationalism. It is extremely hard for them to work with and develop their forces among non-Pashtun people.

If we are to believe the ACP (Maoist) they do not enjoy popular support except among the Pashtuns, who are not generally active in their struggle anyway, and there is little to no chance of them actually being able to mount a government even if the occupiers left. Reports from the mainstream media generally support the notion that taliban support is rare in non-pashtun areas. Pashtuns themselves do not even make up 40% of the population, and if the ACP (Maoist) is correct (and this seems to be corroborated by other sources) then the Afghan people are not in fact "turning towards the Taleban" as you claim they are. In fact the Pashtuns themselves do not actively support the Taleban, and much of their support comes from Pakistan. So the Taleban are not even supported by the vast majority of Afghans. In fact Taleban support is threatened even in some Pashtun regions:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/14/taliban-target-shrine-sacred-to-pashtuns/


Last March, militants destroyed the 400-year-old Abu Saeed Baba shrine near Peshawar. At least 10 people who tried to save the shrine were killed.

The latest attack is fraught with potential political significance. The Taliban are mostly Pashtuns, but not all Pashtuns are Taliban, and the destruction of the shrine could turn them against the militants.

Considered more than a Sufi saint, Rahman Baba is a highly respected poet in the Pashto language, and the attack on his mausoleum is considered an assault on the cultural heritage of Pashtuns.

Not to mention there has been a specifically anti-taleban protest with over 1000 people, largely pashtuns recently:

https://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/67874/1-000-in-anti-Taliban-protest


Protesters from Laghman's Alingar district where most of those killed came from shouted "Death to Taliban" and "Death to killers" in the provincial capital of Mehtar Lam. They waved black flags in a sign of mourning.

"They were innocent people, trying to find jobs, and they killed them," Abdul Wakil Attock, the spokesman for the provincial governor, said about the victims.

The protest in Laghman, a province next to Kabul, underscores the growing rivalry among Pashtuns, the dominant ethnic group in Afghanistan that also form the core of the Taliban fighters.

[BobKKKindle$]

At any rate I will never support theocracy. You've kept making this point, and there are two basic objections that can be made. Firstly, favoring the military victory of the Taleban over the continuation of the NATO occupation is not the same as supporting theocracy or any of the other practices that the Taleban would try to implement as soon as they gained power. You're making a link that doesn't exist. Marxists are ultimately oppossed to the existence of nation states because we recognize that nations are an integral part of the capitalist system and will only disappear once capitalism has been overthrown and replaced with a society based on collective control of the productive apparatus and the distribution of goods according to need, and yet we realize that the national question requires our attention under capitalism because it is bound up with class consciousness, the state of which effectively determines whether the proletariat will ever be able to carry out its historic task - being the gravedigger of capitalism. Secondly, and more obviously, the prospect of the Taleban imposing a theocracy is, in a way, irrelevant, because Afghanistan is already a theocracy. This is true for two reasons. (1) The Taleban already controls large areas of the country, particularly in the countryside where the government does not have the ability to monitor the situation and execute its policies, and in these areas the Taleban have already begun to impose many of the practices that prevailed in Afghanistan when the Taleban controlled the whole of the country, before the civil war in the 1990s. This (http://www.rferl.org/content/Taliban_In_72_Percent_Of_Afghanistan_Think_Tank_Sa ys/1357252.html) article, published in December of last year, estimates that the Taleban controls an incredible 72% of Afghanistan, and is rapidly surrounding Kabul. For this reason, the Taleban taking control of the whole country would only lead to the extension of practices that are already in place - although this is, of course, still regrettable. (2) The actual government of Hamid Karzai is essentially an Islamist government - the Shia Family Law that has been passed by the Afghan parliament this week legalizes rape by allowing husbands to have sex with their wives regardless of whether the wife has given her consent, with men also being given preferential inheritance rights, easier access to divorce, and priority in court. In addition, women are still required to wear the niqab in public, and are deprived of opportunities to attain financial independence or participate in the political process. As with the above, this means that the victory of the Taleban would - apart from the expulsion of the occupation - not signify any vast deterioration in the conditions of Afghan women. This is not anything to celebrate, because conditions are currently terrible, but it further demonstrates that I am not supporting theocracy, and it disproves the notion that the occupation can be supported on feminist-humanitarian grounds.


Theoretical? Are you saying they don't exist? If this is the case, then that's a good thing. I've been asking you to decide between rule under the Taleban and the continuation of the occupation, not because I have any special love for the former, but because, based on my understanding of the resistance, and the strength of the Taleban relative to other groupings and organizations, it seems that the most likely result of the occupation being expelled would be the Taleban assuming control of the entire country, and so this is the standard we need to use when considering which situation would be better for the proletariat. If the Taleban is actually fairly weak, then we would expect the expulsion of the occupation to create a space in which progressives can build support amongst those who formerly supported the Taleban on anti-imperialist grounds, and by doing so create the basis of a genuinely liberation-orientated movement, directed against the Afghan bourgeoisie, including the reactionary Islamists. For argument's sake however - and in view of the fact that whether the Taleban is weak or strong is an issue of contention - do you agree that an Afghanistan controlled by the Taleban would still be better, from the perspective of the international proletariat, then an Afghanistan occupied by NATO, especially in light of the fact that the Taleban is already in control in much of the country, as argued above?

[benhur]

Sorry for the digression, but since people have already done that, I couldn't resist...

When it comes to Afghanistan, US occupation (hell any occupation!) would be preferable to Taliban occupation. Mind you, I am NOT defending the invasion, so don't jump down my throat. I am only saying since the invasion has already happened and cannot be wished away, we must face up to the fact that Afghanistan will be occupied. So the question is, Occupied by whom? When it comes down to pre-historic savages like taliban, it's better to support just about anyone as an alternative.

At least with a non-taliban, there might be some scope for development, a relative sense of freedom, human rights, democracy etc. etc. Even if it's all bourgeois, as some rich London-based SWP guys would allege, it doesn't change the fact that it's far, far better than a taliban which believes in stoning, flogging and all the rest. Imagine the pain and humiliation Afghan women have to go through because of this.:cursing:

So anything, even a bourgeois democracy or capitalism, would be better than taliban governane, because at least with the former, there might be some scope for revolutionary activity. People may become more aware, more educated in due course, and thereby see things differently than they would if they were under Taliban occupation. There's a glimmer of hope with non-taliban, there's absolutely none with the taliban stone-age scum.

[Wanted Man]

Sorry for the digression, but since people have already done that, I couldn't resist...

When it comes to Afghanistan, US occupation (hell any occupation!) would be preferable to Taliban occupation. Mind you, I am NOT defending the invasion, so don't jump down my throat. I am only saying since the invasion has already happened and cannot be wished away, we must face up to the fact that Afghanistan will be occupied. So the question is, Occupied by whom? When it comes down to pre-historic savages like taliban, it's better to support just about anyone as an alternative.

At least with a non-taliban, there might be some scope for development, a relative sense of freedom, human rights, democracy etc. etc. Even if it's all bourgeois, as some rich London-based SWP guys would allege, it doesn't change the fact that it's far, far better than a taliban which believes in stoning, flogging and all the rest. Imagine the pain and humiliation Afghan women have to go through because of this.:cursing:

So anything, even a bourgeois democracy or capitalism, would be better than taliban governane, because at least with the former, there might be some scope for revolutionary activity. People may become more aware, more educated in due course, and thereby see things differently than they would if they were under Taliban occupation. There's a glimmer of hope with non-taliban, there's absolutely none with the taliban stone-age scum.
The benign, slightly more enlightened, non-prehistoric and non-savage, relatively free, human rights, glimmer of hope bourgeois democracy has just legalised rape in Afghanistan (http://www.revleft.com/vb/rape-legalized-afghanistan-t105633/index.html).

Just sayin'.

[pastradamus]

Sorry for the digression, but since people have already done that, I couldn't resist...

When it comes to Afghanistan, US occupation (hell any occupation!) would be preferable to Taliban occupation. Mind you, I am NOT defending the invasion, so don't jump down my throat. I am only saying since the invasion has already happened and cannot be wished away, we must face up to the fact that Afghanistan will be occupied. So the question is, Occupied by whom? When it comes down to pre-historic savages like taliban, it's better to support just about anyone as an alternative.

At least with a non-taliban, there might be some scope for development, a relative sense of freedom, human rights, democracy etc. etc. Even if it's all bourgeois, as some rich London-based SWP guys would allege, it doesn't change the fact that it's far, far better than a taliban which believes in stoning, flogging and all the rest. Imagine the pain and humiliation Afghan women have to go through because of this.:cursing:

So anything, even a bourgeois democracy or capitalism, would be better than taliban governane, because at least with the former, there might be some scope for revolutionary activity. People may become more aware, more educated in due course, and thereby see things differently than they would if they were under Taliban occupation. There's a glimmer of hope with non-taliban, there's absolutely none with the taliban stone-age scum.

Im not sure if I would agree with you when you said that afghanistan is better off under the occupation.

Check out this topic:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rape-legalized-afghanistan-t105633/index.html

[BobKKKindle$]

benhur, Afghanistan is not currently a bourgeois democracy in any meaningful sense, and so the entire basis of your argument - that the Afghan people are more likely to become educated and exercise freedom under the democracy that has been put in place by the occupation, and therefore the occupation needs to remain to prevent Afghanistan from falling under the control of the Taleban, which would lead to the newly-formed democracy being destroyed - is false.

As noted in my previous post, the government's presence extends to less than half of the country, and even in the cities, where the government does have some degree of control, reactionary polices are in place, as exemplified by the recent marriage law, and the resources that people actually need to improve their lives and exercise autonomy - access to education, a functioning healthcare system, a basic level of infrastructure, clean and reliable water, a power network, a stable jobs market - are entirely absent and are not going to be restored as long as the occupation remains in place. It was clear from the beginning that the occupation was never about improving the lives of the Afghan people because the US has always been willing to lend support to reactionary movements in the hope of enhancing its own imperial interests (the US initially sought to enter into an agreement with the Taleban during the 1990s over the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan, but it failed because the Taleban were unable to guarantee sufficient stability) including the Northern Alliance, which carried out reprisal attacks against Pashtuns as it took control of the country, and since the invasion in 2001 conditions in Afghanistan have deteriorated to the extent that the agricultural sector produces less than half of the food that's needed to feed the population (the rest is provided by the UN's humanitarian agencies) due to low prices for basic foodstuffs and farmers have turned to the production of opium, which represents the only viable source of income, and was formerly banned under the Taleban - the level of opium production in Afghanistan has risen so high that the country is now the world's biggest producer of heroin, above Burma.

The feminist justification for the invasion - that women would be liberated - now looks like some kind of sick joke because large numbers of Afghan women are faced with the duty of caring for their children with no outside help after the deaths of their male relatives, and have turned to prostitution, or drug abuse, as a result. The aid that was allocated by the occupation powers for reconstruction and the provision of utilities has become another form of imperial dominance, squandered on contracts for corporations, which, coincidentally, are from the same countries that took part in the invasion. Jean Mazurelle, the World Bank director in Kabul, estimates that 35 to 40 percent of all international aid sent to Afghanistan is “badly spent” - which means that it's being used to construct things that can be used by only a small minority of the Afghan population, including the newly-built Sheraton hotel in Kabul, and shopping malls in the same city.

What lessons can we take from this? The basic lesson is something I've stated before, but it needs to be stated again and again - there is no such thing as benevolent imperialism, and the Afghan working class has absolutely nothing to gain from the occupation. Those who suggest otherwise are falling into the old trap of seeing the west as a progressive force that can liberate the poor savages of the third world and show them what civilization is like. Needless to say, this is apologism for imperialism. That's why I support the resistance, despite the fact that it's led by the Taleban.

[benhur]

The benign, slightly more enlightened, non-prehistoric and non-savage, relatively free, human rights, glimmer of hope bourgeois democracy has just legalised rape in Afghanistan (http://www.revleft.com/vb/rape-legalized-afghanistan-t105633/index.html).

Just sayin'.

This is true of many other Islamic nations as well, even the more moderate ones like Pakistan and Saudi. This only goes on to show that political Islam of any kind, even the most progressive, breeds trouble for the people, especially for women and workers. All the more reason for rapid westernization which, although a necessary evil, would at least sow the seeds of socialism at a later date. Now I am beginning to understand Hitchens better. His isn't a racist view, but a rational one.

[Wanted Man]

Ahh okay, it's the brown people's fault and Christopher Hitchens is a good guy. Glad we got that cleared up. People might start to think it's weird to apologise for imperialist invasions and their neocon cheerleaders.

[Sam_b]

This only goes on to show that political Islam of any kind, even the most progressive, breeds trouble for the people, especially for women and workers. All the more reason for rapid westernization which, although a necessary evil, would at least sow the seeds of socialism at a later date.

Wow, chauvenism and apologism for imperialism in all of a few posts! Isn't it time you were restricted? Your views are abhorrant, and anti-socialist. Have you ever actually read Trotsky?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You also present a reductionist account of the situation in Iraq by suggest that most of the attacks are sectarian in nature - the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of attacks are directed either against coalition forces or the armed forces of the puppet government (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm)) although it is in the interests of the occupation powers to portray Iraq as a country that would instantly fall into sectarian war as soon as withdrawal took place because this provides a rationale for these powers retaining a military presence there - in fact, the notion that Iraq is an inherently unstable country that needs a foreign-controlled government to manage its different ethnic and religious groups is the exact same argument that was used by the British state when Iraq was part of the British empire. In truth, whatever sectarian violence and animosity currently exists in Iraq is at least partly the result of decisions undertaken by the occupation, in particular the ongoing transfer of funds and materials to the Sunni militias, and the ban place on all former Ba'ath party members being admitted into public-sector jobs.

Well, first of all, from your source, which is several years old BTW:


MAJOR ATTACKS IN IRAQ
23 Nov 06 - 200 dead
- Five car bombs and mortar attacks in Sadr City, Baghdad
13 Aug 06 - 57 dead
Four-storey building destroyed in blast in Zafaraniya district.
18 July 06 - 53 dead
Car bomb in southern city of Kufa near Shia shrine
1 July 06 - 66 killed
Car bomb in Sadr City, Baghdad
7 April 2006 - 85 dead
Triple suicide bombing at Shia Buratha mosque
5 Jan 06 - 110 dead
Suicide bombers hit Karbala shrine and police recruiting station in Ramadi
18 Nov 05 - 80 dead
Multiple bombings in Baghdad and two Khanaqin mosques
14 Sept 05 - 182 dead
Suicide car bomber targets Baghdad labourers in worst of a series of bombs
16 Aug 05 - 90 dead
Suicide bomber detonates fuel tanker in Musayyib
28 Feb 05 - 114 dead
Suicide car bomb hits government jobseekers in Hilla
24 June 04 - 100 dead
Co-ordinated blasts in Mosul and other cities
2 March 04 - 140 dead
Suicide bombers attack Shia festival at Karbala and Baghdad
1 Feb 04 - 105 dead
Twin attacks on Kurdish parties' offices in Irbil
28 Aug 03 - 85 dead
Car bomb at Najaf shrine targets senior Shia cleric

As I said, the hardest thing to defend against is lunatics who strap TNT o themselves or their car and blow up as many people as possible.



Secondly, the reason there wasn't sectarian strife prior to the invasion is because any and all strife was immediately put down. For example, when several Shiites tried to assasinate the leader he had well over a hundred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre) in the city done away with as reprisal. Of course, we all remember what happened to the Kurds who were accused of having loyalty to their Iranian counterparts. But this isn't really anything uncommon to the area, for example when Hafez al-Assad saw a city try and revolt from his control he had bulldozers flatten it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre). An example of a place were those sectarian lines become unreparable fault lines was Lebanon, which took 15 years of brutal conflict to stabilize. I'm not trying to sound chauvinistic pan-american but it looks, from the outside looking in, that sectarian srife has been there for a while, at least since the Brits and French decided to draw up there own borders for the region.

The stated goal of al-Aqaeda in Iraq is to stir the Sunni's againt the Shiites, hence the bombing of the Samarra mosque which let the sectarian strife off the leash for months. This is the biggest fear about the US leaving: How will the Iraqi government respond to unrest? My own gut feeling tells me artillery fire will always be an option.


There are some commentators who have even suggested that attempts to reform the DPRK's political and economic system may be facing opposition from the military who want to retain their dominant political role, despite receiving support from Kim Jong-Il.

Interesting.


The fact that the current head of state is the son of the previous leader is not by itself evidence that North Korea is a monarchy, especially if we understand monarchy not merely as a political apparatus but also as part of a feudal mode of production, because it is common in many countries for multiple generations of a single family to be active at the apex of the political system, the most obvious example of this being the US, and yet these countries are never accused of being a monarchy.

Being feudal doesn't make it a monarchy, the UK can attest to that. Holding near-absolute power for life for nothing else than being the son of the last ruler comes pretty close.


The only way you could see the current regime in Iraq as offering more freedom is if you adopted a completely idealist and bourgeois understanding of what freedom is. Marxists always draw a distinction between freedom in the abstract, and the actual conditions in which people live - the fact that the Iraqi constitution now includes a clause guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly does not mean that the majority of Iraq's population is actually capable of enjoying these freedoms, and can be seen as genuinely free, because the ability of any individual to take advantage of a given freedom will always depend on their economic and social circumstances, particularly whether they are in a position of dependence on others through a wage-labour relationship, or whether they are independent. I would argue that, despite the oppressive nature of the Ba'ath regime, Iraqis were far more free under the Sadaam government, in that their ability to exercise control over their lives and pursue the development of their talents was greater than it is currently. The broader social and economic impacts of the invasion - power shortages, a collapsing education system, poor availiability of healthcare, a brain drain resulting from professionals and intellectuals fleeing to surrounding countries - are well known and require no elaboration here.

Well, first, judging the Iraq that exists today would be no different from judging the USSR in 1922. To say "It failed-the old way is better" may be quite premature.

Also, again, equating freedom as only concerning material conditions is a bit of a stretch for me. Yes, Iraq is on quite a shitty place right now, but let's not forget that hundreds of thousands of young Iraqis died because the leader decided he wanted to launch aggressive wars against several of his neighbors. At least today they can determine the govt they get to some degree.

But before I go on, let me ask: If the freedom a people has is relative to their material conditions (which is true in a large degree), then why support the resistance? Many groups, especially 'al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia' but others as well, state their goal as preventing Iraq from functioning properly, lest they open up to the west. Hence the targeting of infrastructure. Can one honestly state that armed resistance will result in better living conditions on the ground? Even if it forced the US to leave, what will that accomplish for Iraqi's?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Wow, chauvenism and apologism for imperialism in all of a few posts! Isn't it time you were restricted? Your views are abhorrant, and anti-socialist. Have you ever actually read Trotsky?

To be fair, he did not say 'imperialism' he said 'westernization.'

While that might mean he views ideas like liberty, equality, and socialism to be exclusively western ideals, it does not necessarily mean he supports invasion to try and change it in places were we aren't already.

One could very well say that Dubai and Qatar are becoming increasingly western in certain aspects, and are also some of the more progressive regimes in the gulf without being invaded by hostile westerners in quite a long time.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Can one honestly state that armed resistance will result in better living conditions on the ground? Even if it forced the US to leave, what will that accomplish for Iraqi's?

Gee, i guess we should probably send a note to the various resistance groups, insisting that it would be better for everyone if they just hooped on board, or at least didn't stand in the way of, America's latest neo-liberal project. Since armed resistance only makes things worse, we might as well drop this whole revolution business and all just become Social Democrats.

[Wanted Man]

One could very well say that Dubai and Qatar are becoming increasingly western in certain aspects, and are also some of the more progressive regimes in the gulf without being invaded by hostile westerners in quite a long time.
Yeah, lovely progressive regimes. Especially Dubai, with the "Labour Camps" where immigrant labourers have to work 18 hours a day.

http://94.100.113.229/422700001-422750000/422728001-422728100/422728034_6_BdvZ.jpeg

How the hell did you get unrestricted, anyway?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Did you not read my whole post?

One could very well say that Dubai and Qatar are becoming increasingly western in certain aspects, and are also some of the more progressive regimes in the gulf without being invaded by hostile westerners in quite a long time.

(in the gulf ie the arabian peninsula).

Other aspects of Dubai:

http://www.dubaiforums.com/photos/Dubai_JumeirahBeachPark2.JPG

Too me, that looks progressive compared to nearby states which force women to cover themselves at all times in public.

I could give you pictures of Mexican laborers who work 15-hour days here. Would you seriously believe we were not as progressive a society as compared to most other countries?

[Wanted Man]

Other aspects of Dubai:
A girl in a bikini. You've certainly proved me wrong there, champ... Seriously, what is this bullshit? A massively inequal country where the urban poor are trampled upon in an unprecedented way. BUT AT LEAST THEY HAVE HOT CHICKS IN BIKINIS.

And yes, the way Mexican immigrants are treated in the US also makes it "less progressive" (whatever that means) than many other countries.

[Sam_b]

To be fair, he did not say 'imperialism' he said 'westernization.'

Yet in the previous post he said that any occupation force would be preferable to the Taliban.



As I said, the hardest thing to defend against is lunatics who strap TNT o themselves or their car and blow up as many people as possible.

And this isn't the point at all, especially with the loaded term of 'lunatics' which I think in this case is abhorrant. We don't defend these attacks at all: but we understand why this practice occurs. It certainly says something about how barbaric the occupation forces are when someone feels desperate enough to commit this sort of act.

Yet again on the subject of occupation and imperialism, This Charming Man is 100% correct.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

A girl in a bikini. You've certainly proved me wrong there, champ... Seriously, what is this bullshit? A massively inequal country where the urban poor are trampled upon in an unprecedented way. BUT AT LEAST THEY HAVE HOT CHICKS IN BIKINIS.

Uggh I'm going to have to take this real slow...

First of all, the 'urban poor' who ge trampled are mostly Pakistanis who are flown in and out to work,but that's secondary.

You may not be aware of this, but in most gulf countries women are forced to obey some aspects of Sharia law. The most obvious aspect of this is that women have to wear, at the least, a hijab that covers their hair. In the more fundamentalist countries, women have to wear a full burkha. In some societies, even if there is no law on the books requiring such observance to religious law, armed men use physical initimidation to force women to obey.

Now, Dubai isn't like that. In fact, they allow women, as demonstrated above, to show off quite a bit of skin. I would call that progressive, perhaps one could even say say that Dubai is becoming increasingly western in certain aspects, and is also one of the more progressive regimes in the gulf without being invaded by hostile westerners in quite a long time.


And yes, the way Mexican immigrants are treated in the US also makes it "less progressive" (whatever that means) than many other countries.Then why are you wailing against Dubai for practices which occur in the west all the time? Do you not believe that the west is, in certain aspects, more progressive than the Gulf states, or are social freedoms meaningless?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

We don't defend these attacks at all: but we understand why this practice occurs. It certainly says something about how barbaric the occupation forces are when someone feels desperate enough to commit this sort of act.No, by itself it says nothing of the sort. In the past 2 weeks or so, over 50 Americans have died in almost a half-dozen mass shootings. Do those desperate acts point to a barbaric system, or does it point to a system in which crazed lunatics too easily get a gun?

What the bombings in Iraq show is that certain groups would like to kill as many Iraqi's as it takes to cause the country to fall into sectarian strife, forcing the Americans to lose heart and withdraw. This is the stated goal of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, as they fully realize tha they could not bring about enough violence by themselves so they bomb Shia areas to stir up anger against Sunni's. As such I believe that the Iraqi government provides a better way forward and should be supported against such enemies, despite the fact that the US govt also supports it and it is a bourgeouis government.

[BobKKKindle$]

One could very well say that Dubai and Qatar are becoming increasingly western in certain aspects, and are also some of the more progressive regimes in the gulf without being invaded by hostile westerners in quite a long time.Being able to wear a bikini and not having to wear the hijab in public does not constitute freedom - for Marxists, at least, who acknowledge that freedom means being able to exercise meaningful control over the direction of your life, and having the ability to develop as an individual through un-alienated labour. I would argue (and this does not amount to a defence of the Iranian regime - I am simply exposing your simplistic and bourgeois concept of freedom) that Iran is actually far more free than any of these countries for women on the grounds that women make up more than half of the undergraduate population in Iran whereas women are a minority in higher education in other countries and are concentrated in local and vocational institutions. For the same reason, and also due to advances in healthcare and the provision of chiildcare facilities, I would also argue that Iraq was one of the most progressive and free states in the region, despite its oppressive government, and the absence of political freedoms. In Iran, women stand some chance of getting an education, whereas in Dubai, the foreign female workers who are abused and employed as domestic servants can walk along the beach in a bikini - if they're lucky to get a day off, of course, and if they can actually afford to buy a bikini after they've sent their appallingly-low wages back home to support their families. You cannot seriously believe that the latter is more progressive and liberating than the former.

Once again, you've displayed a thoroughly bourgeois understanding of what freedom entails - you view freedom in the abstract, and as consisting of the right to do trivial things like wearing a bikini, without considering the substance of freedom for the oppressed and exploited. The proletariat of Dubai is not free at all, and that's what we, as Marxists, are concerned about, not freedom for western tourists.


Do those desperate acts point to a barbaric system, or does it point to a system in which crazed lunatics too easily get a gun?

Once again, that reductionist term "crazed lunatic". If you don't know how to explain a phenomenon, or if it offends your liberal sensitives, just dismiss the actor as mad and stick your head in the sand. There are good reasons as to why someone might feel the need to become a suicide bomber or carry out attacks on those whom you may see as innocent - that's how bad the occupation is.

[BobKKKindle$]

What the bombings in Iraq show is that certain groups would like to kill as many Iraqi's as it takes to cause the country to fall into sectarian strife, forcing the Americans to lose heart and withdraw.

If the US chooses to withdraw from Iraq it won't be because they witness the deaths of Iraqis, it will be because of resistance to the occupation, and struggle against the war inside the imperialist bloc. The US presided over the deaths of one million Iraqis during the period of sanctions after the first Gulf War and since the invasion a further million have been killed or have died through malnutrition and disease.

[Patchd]

This is true of many other Islamic nations as well, even the more moderate ones like Pakistan and Saudi. This only goes on to show that political Islam of any kind, even the most progressive, breeds trouble for the people, especially for women and workers. All the more reason for rapid westernization which, although a necessary evil, would at least sow the seeds of socialism at a later date. Now I am beginning to understand Hitchens better. His isn't a racist view, but a rational one.

I would oppose political Islam on an ideological basis as well as a philosophical one, politics based around the teachings of any religious figures or books are counter-productive in my opinion, usually they will result in authoritarian and deeply oppressive societies, the same goes for Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc...

Of course, there are some exceptions however, we must remember that some religious sects are very libertarian, at least in the sense of governing and of communalism, in many cases that would also extend to religious practice.

Still, I reject your belief that we need to "Westernise" others, Westernisation is already occurring in many of these countries thanks to globalisation. This is a form of financial imperialism that we must resist also, it's not the "better evil" in any circumstance.

These regions must develop technologically so that their productive forces can also develop. Remember, its not about culture, it's about class.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Being able to wear a bikini and not having to wear the hijab in public does not constitute freedom - for Marxists, at least, who acknowledge that freedom means being able to exercise meaningful control over the direction of your life, and having the ability to develop as an individual through un-alienated labour. I would argue (and this does not amount to a defence of the Iranian regime - I am simply exposing your simplistic and bourgeois concept of freedom) that Iran is actually far more free than any of these countries for women on the grounds that women make up more than half of the undergraduate population in Iran whereas women are a minority in higher education in other countries and are concentrated in local and vocational institutions.

I know and I agree with the fact that Iran is often castigated as an evil regime which they do not always deserve.

However, what you are suggesting is that Marxist freedom is less than Bourgeois freedom. Even if all economic liberation was given I would not accept it if it meant social freedoms (or 'Bourgeois" as you call them) are done away with. That is counterproductive and not liberating at all.


For the same reason, and also due to advances in healthcare and the provision of chiildcare facilities, I would also argue that Iraq was one of the most progressive and free states in the region, despite its oppressive government, and the absence of political freedoms. In Iran, women stand some chance of getting an education, whereas in Dubai, the foreign female workers who are abused and employed as domestic servants can walk along the beach in a bikini - if they're lucky to get a day off, of course, and if they can actually afford to buy a bikini after they've sent their appallingly-low wages back home to support their families. You cannot seriously believe that the latter is more progressive and liberating than the former.

Well, yes in certain respects. But this example is flawed.


Once again, you've displayed a thoroughly bourgeois understanding of what freedom entails - you view freedom in the abstract, and as consisting of the right to do trivial things like wearing a bikini, without considering the substance of freedom for the oppressed and exploited. The proletariat of Dubai is not free at all, and that's what we, as Marxists, are concerned about, not freedom for western tourists.

When did I say that the proletariat of Dubai was free? Stop putting words in my mouth, what I said was that compared to the other Gulf states Dubai is progressive in some aspects. One of these being the aforementioned freedom of wearing a bikini, ie not having the state tell you how much you need to wear.


Once again, that reductionist term "crazed lunatic". If you don't know how to explain a phenomenon, or if it offends your liberal sensitives, just dismiss the actor as mad and stick your head in the sand. There are good reasons as to why someone might feel the need to become a suicide bomber or carry out attacks on those whom you may see as innocent - that's how bad the occupation is.

Well, first you're the one getting offended by me calling these gunmen who indiscriminately mowed down men, women, and children 'crazed lunatics,' which is perhaps the most liberal thing you can do.

But anyway, your example isn't helping me.

"The occupation is so bad I now feel justified blowing up a Shiite mosque so they kill Sunni's and the Americans have to leave!" Really?

[BobKKKindle$]

However, what you are suggesting is that Marxist freedom is less than Bourgeois freedomNo, bourgeois freedom is limited to what we have the legal right to do, in the abstract, without considering the actual conditions in which people live - in other words, what we can theoretically do without being coerced by the state. This conception of freedom is limited because having the legal freedom to do something does not guarantee that someone actually has the realistic ability to enjoy a given right in any meaningful sense, or be a genuinely autonomous being, as our circumstances have the power to deny us control over our lives and leave us in a state of dependency, in which we have a limited number of options open to us in terms of what we can realistically do with the resources at our disposal, and are subject to the control of other individuals or external forces, such as the state, and the economy. The Marxist conception of freedom involves the liberation of man from these external forces and the creation of a society in which the autonomy of each and every individual is maximized, allowing man to control the way in which he develops himself through the active fulfillment and development of desires and capacities, otherwise known as self-objectification, and enter into human relationships with other members of society, in contrast to the alienation experienced under capitalism. This view is rooted in the Marxist notion that what makes mankind different from animals is our capacity to engage in conscious labour with the natural world, and our fellow humans, and that by doing so we are also capable of developing ourselves and our knowledge of the world around us. This conception represents so much more than bourgeois freedom.

I don't know what you mean by "social freedoms", I don't think I've ever encountered this term. I rest my case that the freedom to wear a bikini is a meaningless kind of freedom - not only because the majority of citizens in the countries you mentioned are unable to exercise their right to wear a bikini, owing to their status as impoverished wage-laborers, but also because, compared to other freedoms and rights, such as the right to access education regardless of your socioeconomic status, the right to wear a bikini is irrelevant. For Marxists, Cuba is a more free society than the United States, and Iran is a more free society than the UAE, because the average proletariat in the former country in each comparison has a greater ability to exercise control over their life, whereas in the other country, they are at the mercy of economic forces to a greater degree.


what I said was that compared to the other Gulf states Dubai is progressive in some aspectsNo, you said it was becoming more "westernized" (whatever that means) in certain aspects, and was one of the more progressive gulf states. A simple question - which society is more free, Iran, or the UAE?


"The occupation is so bad I now feel justified blowing up a Shiite mosque so they kill Sunni's and the Americans have to leave!" Really?We've already established that most of the attacks that are carried out in Iraq are not sectarian in nature - this is not to say that sectarian attacks are not taking place, or that the death toll from sectarian attacks is in proportion to the prevalence of these attacks, but it does mean that Iraq cannot be seen simply as a sectarian battleground. You want to characterize Iraq in this way, and as a fundamentally unstable and sectarian country, because it allows you to justify your support for the occupation. Haifa Zangana (good interview here (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10229)) points out that sectarian violence is a phenomenon that has only become widespread since the occupation, and there has in fact always been a state at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers since the beginning of civilization in Mesopotamia, in contrast to those who argue that Iraq is an artificial state, established by the British, and incapable of functioning without the aid of a foreign power. This may be of interest, from the interview I linked to above, which is from one of my party's publications, Socialist Review:


There is a lot of government propaganda from the US and Britain portraying the violence now as sectarian violence — Iraqis killing Iraqis.

We have never had a civil war in Iraq based on sectarian violence. The occupation has been there for only five years but this division has been planned since day one. The head of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer decided that every aspect of the creation of a government and a timetable for the political process in
Iraq should be based on sectarian and ethnic divides.

The claims of Sunnis killing Shias, or Shias killing Sunnis or Christians have been manipulated and have been very useful for the propaganda operation led by the US forces to justify staying forever in Iraq, saying they are protecting Iraqi people from killing each other. We have seen this logic by colonial powers in modern history time after time.

The US also want to hide the fact that there is genuine physical resistance by Iraqis united against the occupation.

By making the picture foggy they can disguise the presence of Iraqi people's resistance to the occupation and also claim they are terrorists — Al Qaida or foreign fighters. But Iraqi people don't need foreign fighters; they are fighting themselves.

The Iraqi resistance is growing, and there is support within society at large. These people are facing and fighting the most powerful military power, aided by informers, collaborators, and a parallel army of security firms and contractors. How else can you explain the persistence and growth of the Iraqi resistance and attacks on those powerful armies if they weren't protected and supported by the Iraqi people? Yet the US and Britain want to deny the existence of people who use their free will to fight the occupation.

We want to rule ourselves. We have the right to rule ourselves, to enjoy independence, sovereignty, and to have the control of all our resources.

[Yazman]

I stopped posting in this thread when Bobkindles requested it BECAUSE I THOUGHT A MOD WAS GOING TO SPLIT OFF THE FUCKING DISCUSSION.

Can we fucking please have this shit about Afghanistan split off from the thread? It is very disruptive and has totally and utterly derailed the discussion about the North Korean missile launch.


I don't know what you mean by "social freedoms", I don't think I've ever encountered this term. I rest my case that the freedom to wear a bikini is a meaningless kind of freedom - not only because the majority of citizens in the countries you mentioned are unable to exercise their right to wear a bikini, owing to their status as impoverished wage-laborers, but also because, compared to other freedoms and rights, such as the right to access education regardless of your socioeconomic status, the right to wear a bikini is irrelevant. For Marxists, Cuba is a more free society than the United States, and Iran is a more free society than the UAE, because the average proletariat in the former country in each comparison has a greater ability to exercise control over their life, whereas in the other country, they are at the mercy of economic forces to a greater degree.

Well, look. Cuba is ok, but it is an authoritarian system. I support Cuba because it doesn't seem to have most of the horrible shit that came with the rest of the Soviet sphere. But it isn't perfect. Human society has come to a point where we have the freedoms we have now - why the fuck should they be rolled back? You make it sound as if social freedom and economic freedom are mutually exclusive - this is of course bullshit. We don't need to do away with human rights in order to establish economic freedom or to emancipate the workers. You sound like an apologist for theocracy and/or dictatorship. I'm not surprised though, considering Marxist-Leninists seem to be so adamant about banning things, censoring things, and generally restricting what the workers can do so much that they want capitalism back. If you want to keep people interested in progress you need to actually be progressive and give them more freedom, not less. The freedom to enjoy education at every level doesn't really mean a whole lot when you can't walk down the street without a male escort, you can't buy things without a man's permission, you must always wear a burkha that covers up your entire body including most of your face. It doesn't mean a whole lot when you can't say what you want, organise when you want, or go where you want. This idea that certain freedoms are "bourgeois" is ridiculous. Allowing people to travel without restriction is not inherently "bourgeois." Allowing people to say what they want is not bourgeois. Allowing people to wear what they want and organise when they want to is not "bourgeois."


No, you said it was becoming more "westernized" (whatever that means) in certain aspects, and was one of the more progressive gulf states. A simple question - which society is more free, Iran, or the UAE?

You sound like Bill O'Reilly, and I have to respond to this in the same way that somebody else did when prompted with similar questions - its NOT simple because I'm thoughtful. Critical analysis doesn't mean multiple choice questions, that you would reduce the debate to this level is poor form. Its not as simple as saying "this country is more free than that one." The "freedoms" present in each country are pretty variable, although I would argue that neither exhibits anything thats really worth mentioning as far as the proletariat are concerned. Both are systems dominated by islamic theocrats, both are capitalist nations and both are bourgeois government given legitimacy by the clergy. Resistance should be encouraged in both nations, especially Iran as control by the clergy there is on a much higher level than in the UAE. But both governments and systems clearly need to be overthrown.

Now you said a bunch of stuff about Iraq and sectarian violence - I do have a lot of opinions there, but I will refrain from participating in that portion of the debate as I was absent during it and do not really have a full understanding of the context it was taking place in, or the arguments that were being made in regards to it by the both of you.

[benhur]

Ahh okay, it's the brown people's fault and Christopher Hitchens is a good guy. Glad we got that cleared up. People might start to think it's weird to apologise for imperialist invasions and their neocon cheerleaders.

Please don't twist my words. Taliban is a fact, shia-sunni conflict in ME is a fact. That political Islam oppresses women and workers is a fact. Even the moderate Islamic countries have diabolical laws, this is another fact. These aren't products of my imagination (or of Hitchen's, for that matter). These are facts, and they have nothing to do with US invasion at all.

Or, are you so naive as to reduce everything to US invasion? And why bring in skin color or race here at all? We're dealing with facts, not with a person's color or ethnicity, which is immaterial in any case.

Therefore, it's important to understand that political Islam is a danger in itself, based on these facts. This isn't a racist view, any more than anti-zionism is racist. As socialists, we have to choose the lesser of the two evils, which might eventually pave the way for socialism to flower.

[Sam_b]

These are facts, and they have nothing to do with US invasion at all.

Rubbish. The explosion of sectarian conflicts in places like Iraq, for instance, occured after American imperialist intervention, and it was a deliberate tactic of the oppressor force.

The whole point is socialists don't choose the lesser of two evils. I didn't see many of us cheering at Obama's election, did you? And if you're going to stick to this idea (which shows your hypocrisy) who is the 'lesser evil' out of the IDF and Hamas?

[BobKKKindle$]

Allowing people to say what they want is not bourgeois. Allowing people to wear what they want and organise when they want to is not "bourgeois."

I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that we should not value the ability to voice dissent, and indeed one of the main features of Stalinism and other oppressive forms of government is the denial of basic freedoms such as the right to voice opposition to the state, and the right to enter into associations with other people in order to pursue political objectives. Nor do I think that there are any freedoms that are inherently bourgeois. What I do argue is that there is a certain way of understanding freedom that we can describe as bourgeois, because it is an integral part of the bourgeois worldview, and this is what our own conception of freedom should be posed in opposition to. The bourgeois understanding of freedom sees freedom as the right to do things in the abstract, viewed from the perspective of no individual or class in particular, without considering how these abstract rights actually manifest themselves in reality when we consider the conditions in which people live and what they need to do in order to survive. I've been arguing this point for several posts so perhaps an example will be useful. It is common for the ideologues of bourgeois liberalism to promote freedom of speech as one of the main principles of liberalism, and one of the main achievements of liberal democracies around the world, and it is also often the case that the so-called democratic states (such as the US) include freedom of speech as one of the inviolable rights to which all citizens are entitled, rich or poor, male or female, etc. However, under capitalism, the means of communication - i.e. the technologies and institutions that allow a certain group of people to convey ideas to the rest of society and pursue an ideological agenda - are concentrated in the hands of a small number of media corporations that use their power in order to promote capitalism as the only viable economic system, and to undermine the legitimacy of alternative ways of looking at the world, and alternative ways of organizing production and society. It is theoretically possible for anyone to set up their own media station and challenge this hegemony, and yet the financial resources that are required to do so, and the established position of the mainstream media networks means that this option is open to only a small section of the population, and the individuals who are part of this section are members of the bourgeoisie, and hence interested only in maintaining the existing relations of production. So we can see that under capitalism, we encounter a constant tension between formal freedom and actual freedom, as the vast majority of rights carry substance only for a small minority, and certainly not the proletariat. This is also the case in the UAE where citizens apparently have the right to wear a bikini, but cannot exercise this right, for reasons I've already stated - most people do not have enough money to buy a bikini, nor do they have enough time to spend on the beach relaxing in the sun.

This is not the end of the issue, however. Let's say that the government of the UAE suddenly decided that every single inhabitant of that country should be given a year's supply of bikinis, regardless of their legal and economic status, and that, each year, there should be one day when nobody has to work, and the government actively encourages its citizens to go to the beach and wear their bikinis. In this hypothetical scenario, the right to wear a bikini is not an abstract right - it is social reality, in the same way that the collectivization of the means of communication would transform freedom of speech from an abstract right into social reality. Would we be able to describe the citizens of the UAE as free, in this scenario? No, we would not, because some rights and freedoms are more important for the proletariat than others, and if we consider all the possible rights that someone could enjoy if they were given sufficient resources - including the right to receive a good education, the right to enjoy guaranteed healthcare, a woman's right to terminate pregnancy - we would find that the right to wear a bikini is actually a trivial right and should really not be very high on our list of priorities, and on this basis the fact that a society may offer this right does not allow us to describe it as a free or progressive society, especially when other rights (such as the right to higher education) are denied to most of the population, not only in the sense that they do not exist in social reality, because education is a commodity, but also in that they do not even exist as abstract, legal entities. This is why I see Cuba as being genuinely more free than the US despite the fact that the US offers certain freedoms that the citizens of Cuba cannot exercise - the rights that people in Cuba do enjoy are far more meaningful and important than any of the rights that someone would gain if they decided to move from Cuba to the US.

[GX.]

Did you not read my whole post?

One could very well say that Dubai and Qatar are becoming increasingly western in certain aspects, and are also some of the more progressive regimes in the gulf without being invaded by hostile westerners in quite a long time.

(in the gulf ie the arabian peninsula).

Other aspects of Dubai:

...

Too me, that looks progressive compared to nearby states which force women to cover themselves at all times in public.

I could give you pictures of Mexican laborers who work 15-hour days here. Would you seriously believe we were not as progressive a society as compared to most other countries?

Typical sexist, you think the only aspect of women's liberation is the freedom for women to serve as eye candy for you. I mean nevermind all the real abuses female workers in Dubai face, attractive, prosperous young women can prance around in bikinis. And the fact that Tel Aviv has crappy night clubs somehow makes Israel more progressive than surrounding regimes :rolleyes:.

[GX.]

I also note this one-sided tendency of some here to view religion as damaging, opressive ideolgy, while at the same time seeing secularism as this non-ideological progressive thing. Secularism is just as ideological as religion, and there are many forms of secularism which are in fact not liberating or progressive in any aspect. For example, secularization is often used to defend imperialism (a position it seems that benhur has adopted), even though American intervention in the middle east has unleashed incalculable suffering on women. Hitchens and anyone else who supports imperialism for the purpose of liberating people from fundamentalism is a short-sighted idiot.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Typical sexist, you think the only aspect of women's liberation is the freedom for women to serve as eye candy for you. I mean nevermind all the real abuses female workers in Dubai face, attractive, prosperous young women can prance around in bikinis. And the fact that Tel Aviv has crappy night clubs somehow makes Israel more progressive than surrounding regimes :rolleyes:.

Typical feminist, reducing debate to a simple shouting match and not actually addressing the points at hand. The simple fact that any woman has the freedom to wear what they want is progressive in that society, regardless of the situation the proletariat faces, and regardless of the fact that Pakistanis make a crappy living there.

As for Israel being more progressive than (some of) its neighbors, I would say that yes they do seem to be more tolerant of lifestyles not compliant with ancient texts as opposed to, say, Saudi Arabia.

BTW before we go on too much further this thread should be split up.

[GX.]

Yes we all know how tolerant apartheid states are

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

We were talking about tolerance towards the people in Tel Aviv. In my view those people are more tolerant than many of their neighbors.

Besides, many of the states around Israel are based on the domination of one ethnicity over others.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Sure, but Liberal Democracy in any given society is always upon exploitation and genocidal policies towards those oppressed during its historical oppression, and is always restricted towards those currently under its exploitation. Occupied Palestine is just that.

In reality, Israel isn't tolerant at all: its an oppressive settler nation quite intolerate towards the indigenous peoples.

In fact, it's completely segregated. Roads and highways, even in so-called Palestinian territory are designated for use by Israelis only. There is military everywhere. Checkpoints ('in their own territory') that triple the travel time for Palestinians on short trips. Palestinian homes are bulldozen while families are way; by law Palestinians cannot build without getting a permit; and if they leave the land an Israeli home will be built thus completely dispossessing the Palestinian family. Walls are built which enclose entire Palestian communities on three sides, often separating them from traditionally communal lands and small private holdings.

Your claims that Israel is a tolerant society, at least towards the Palestinians, is completely fictitious. It can be based on nothing more than your obvious affinity for Israeli and Western society; affinity for the oppressor.

[benhur]

In Israel, you won't be flogged or stoned for being seen with another man. Can you say the same about Saudi? Let's face it. Israel is guilty as far as the Palestine issue is concerned, but as far as women's freedom, human rights, democracy, freedom of speech etc. etc. are concerned, they're way ahead of most Islamic nations. There's simply no comparison, let's be realistic and restrict our criticism of Israel to Zionism alone.

[pastradamus]

Yes and No Benhur. I agree with what your saying but the State of Israel still has an extremely poor human rights record. Though you made a correct assertion by saying things are much worse and restrictive in say, Saudi Arabia. Zionism is of course a concept to be opposed but also is the racial discrimation, human rights violations, Extreme Nationalism and the Virtual Imprisonment of the Palestinian people behind the massive walls of state and a virtual siege thats been going on in Gaza for a long,long time.