Another UK troop dead in Afghanistan

[und]

What do you think when you hear things like this on the news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8038921.stm ?

Do you sympathise with the family of the young person who has been brought to this by the capitalist system, or do you not care, thinking of the thousands of innocent lives that have been lost as a result of war?

[jake williams]

I have very mixed feelings. As far as one dead soldier goes, yes; on the scale of human atrocity, the death of one person whom I don't know personally is profoundly unimportant, and part of me is disturbed that it's even reported to the extent that it is. A soldier in a war zone being killed isn't news. And there's a level on which the killing of Western soldiers is in most instances both self-defence and anti-imperialist - even if it's not consciously anti-imperialist, and it's often not leftist.

That said, there's certainly an ugly class element to it - cannons are foddered by, for the most part, the working class, a working class kept desperate and uninformed by the capitalist state both in civilian life and especially in military life (soldiers being brought to the WTC pile before being shipped off comes to mind)... but all of this seems a bit lacking as a defence. When you look at what soldiers actually do, both in actual "wars" and non-combat atrocities, this is hardly any moral defence (which it is often posed as), even if you sympathize with the initial conditions and have far more contempt for the people who sit in office buildings, actually know what's going on in the world, plan the indoctrination, etc. Part of me says that there are no conditions so desolate in the imperialist world that justify direct participation in the imperialist atrocities we've seen for centuries and still see every day.

I also have a reflexive resistance to anything advocated by the state, including the hero worship of soldiers.

But all of that said, soldiers are real people with lives and loved ones, and as a very very solid rule, people have a right to be sad when their loved ones die.

In terms of actual practice, for the most part when I hear about imperialist soldiers dying I'm just profoundly uninterested, and a little irritated that it's clogging my information channels. Actual anger only comes in with particuarly stark jingoism, which unfortunately isn't rare.

[und]

I have very mixed feelings. As far as one dead soldier goes, yes; on the scale of human atrocity, the death of one person whom I don't know personally is profoundly unimportant, and part of me is disturbed that it's even reported to the extent that it is. A soldier in a war zone being killed isn't news. And there's a level on which the killing of Western soldiers is in most instances both self-defence and anti-imperialist - even if it's not consciously anti-imperialist, and it's often not leftist.

That said, there's certainly an ugly class element to it - cannons are foddered by, for the most part, the working class, a working class kept desperate and uninformed by the capitalist state both in civilian life and especially in military life (soldiers being brought to the WTC pile before being shipped off comes to mind)... but all of this seems a bit lacking as a defence. When you look at what soldiers actually do, both in actual "wars" and non-combat atrocities, this is hardly any moral defence (which it is often posed as), even if you sympathize with the initial conditions and have far more contempt for the people who sit in office buildings, actually know what's going on in the world, plan the indoctrination, etc. Part of me says that there are no conditions so desolate in the imperialist world that justify direct participation in the imperialist atrocities we've seen for centuries and still see every day.

I also have a reflexive resistance to anything advocated by the state, including the hero worship of soldiers.

But all of that said, soldiers are real people with lives and loved ones, and as a very very solid rule, people have a right to be sad when their loved ones die.

In terms of actual practice, for the most part when I hear about imperialist soldiers dying I'm just profoundly uninterested, and a little irritated that it's clogging my information channels. Actual anger only comes in with particuarly stark jingoism, which unfortunately isn't rare.
I have to agree with all that you have said. I feel deeply angered in the way in which soldiers returning from the job of terminating thousands or even millions of innocent lives are greeted here in the UK, going on marches with people coming in their thousands waving British flags. What have there soldiers done? Followed the orders of their generals who want nothing but victory, even if it means shelling a school?

What's even worse is that some of these soldiers do it for the "fun" aspect, just like hunting, except with this they're playing with human lives, not petty animals. Most soldiers don't even know the objective of their mission. They are fooled into believing they're doing it for the "greater good" of their home countries. Except, when they return home, has anything changed for the working class which they are probably part of? No, wars make the rich richer, and give imperialist powers more power.

[STJ]

Its not like the draft is still going on. These guys signed up for the army knowing they had a chance to be sent into that war. They are flag waving nationalist. And i dont care what happens to them.

[Bitter Ashes]

Its not like the draft is still going on. These guys signed up for the army knowing they had a chance to be sent into that war. They are flag waving nationalist. And i dont care what happens to them.
Actualy, the draft is going on, in one form. A very large number of troops deployed overseas right now are reserves like TA(UK) and the National Guard(USA). A large number of these people joined the reserves as part time work and were given assurances that unless a situation of Total War broke out, they would not be called up and deployed overseas. What we were told originaly was the following:

- If the UK goes to war then the regulars are sent to the warzone
- Volunteers from the TA would be offered s-type or FTRS deployments if they specifically asked them
- If the regulars need reinforcements then they will take regulars from quieter places like on the mainland, Germany, or Northern Ireland and replace them with TA.
- If the war further esculates then the Home Guard would be mobilised to take over the TA's job on the quieter deployments and then and only then would the TA be put in a warzone. It's at this point that civilians are drafted.
- If things got REALLY dire then even the Home Guard would be sent to the war. The last time this had happened we'd taken over a million casulties in WW2 already, so I really do mean VERY dire.

What really happened was that we all got letters several weeks before the war had even started telling us that we'd been called up and were going straight to Iraq in the first wave. We arrived with equipment totaly unsuitable for the climate, including boots that caused severe injuries in the heat. We were constantly taunted by the regulars by bieng reffered to as "toy army" and used as the lowest dogsbodies in the whole division. We were also told that we'd only ever do one tour and then we'd get a 12 month break. When we came back from the first tour, we found that another letter had arrived before we'd even set down on British soil again telling us that we had 2 weeks before we were out in Iraq again. Even after I left I had letter telling me that I was liable to be called up again at any point in my life and that we were still under potential miliatary law throughout our lives. I've been told similiar things happened with the National Guard.

The reserves were given assurances that they would never be sent in with the first wave and those assurances were totaly binned, the British goverment acted illegaly several times with refference to the Reserves Act and generaly betrayed us all. In short, we were sent to a war just as inapropriatly as any civilian and that's why I reffer to it as a draft.

[NecroCommie]

I dont care if the draft is going on or not. Here we have compulsory military service for all males of 18years or above. Still, if they choose to shoot at their working class comrades rather than take the punishment for desertion, they are no more than class traitors to me. Everyone who takes up the rifle against the working class deserves a dirty end. Coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are murderers in my eyes, and have no sympathy whatsoever.

[piet11111]

][/U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQRfBAzSzo

another one bites the dust.

but seriously i only sympathize with the soldiers that are drafted.

[Sam_b]

guys signed up for the army knowing they had a chance to be sent into that war. They are flag waving nationalist

This is a poor position to take. Is the army an imperialist and reactionary organisation? Yes. Is everyone in the army a reactionary? No.

The fact of the matter is that the army deliberately preys and recruits from impoverished areas, tapping into the cycle of despair in many of these places. The army offers a salary, opportunities to study and all sorts of other incentives, as well as playing the propaganda card of 'you can see the world' 'its your duty to protect your country' and all that bollocks. Like it or not these incentives are very appealing to someone who has let school with little or no qualifications, and is faced with signing on for years due to the lack of jobs available.

So yes, we can say that in some instances some of the soldiers in this conflict are victims. However, that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from supporting the right of the people of Afghanistan to resist the occupation by force.

[Sasha]

i think this song would sum up my feelings acuratly:


Last night another soldier, last night another child
No one seems to worry, no one sees his mother cry

Can you see that smart, clean soldier,
Standing straight and oh so proud
He wants to fight for Queen and country
He wants to make his family proud

A job with the future, his way to get out of it
It's his sense of romance, it never ends that way
Last night another soldier, last night another child
No one seems to worry, no one sees his mother cry

They're just facts and figures on your TV screen
Another child and another soldier, is peace just a dream

In the country strange and foreign all the people resent him
He can't cope with his problems, all the fears and hatred

Now he wish he never went he wish he never thought of it
It's not the same as fighting armies looking for the terrorists

They're just facts and figures...

Can you hear the mocking laughter from the ones that gain by it
They're not in line for the bullets, they're the ones who started it

They're just facts and figures...

Last night another soldier, last night another child
Just a number in the papers, another one of the innocent

They're just facts and figures..

[STJ]

Actualy, the draft is going on, in one form. A very large number of troops deployed overseas right now are reserves like TA(UK) and the National Guard(USA). A large number of these people joined the reserves as part time work and were given assurances that unless a situation of Total War broke out, they would not be called up and deployed overseas. What we were told originaly was the following:

- If the UK goes to war then the regulars are sent to the warzone
- Volunteers from the TA would be offered s-type or FTRS deployments if they specifically asked them
- If the regulars need reinforcements then they will take regulars from quieter places like on the mainland, Germany, or Northern Ireland and replace them with TA.
- If the war further esculates then the Home Guard would be mobilised to take over the TA's job on the quieter deployments and then and only then would the TA be put in a warzone. It's at this point that civilians are drafted.
- If things got REALLY dire then even the Home Guard would be sent to the war. The last time this had happened we'd taken over a million casulties in WW2 already, so I really do mean VERY dire.

What really happened was that we all got letters several weeks before the war had even started telling us that we'd been called up and were going straight to Iraq in the first wave. We arrived with equipment totaly unsuitable for the climate, including boots that caused severe injuries in the heat. We were constantly taunted by the regulars by bieng reffered to as "toy army" and used as the lowest dogsbodies in the whole division. We were also told that we'd only ever do one tour and then we'd get a 12 month break. When we came back from the first tour, we found that another letter had arrived before we'd even set down on British soil again telling us that we had 2 weeks before we were out in Iraq again. Even after I left I had letter telling me that I was liable to be called up again at any point in my life and that we were still under potential miliatary law throughout our lives. I've been told similiar things happened with the National Guard.

The reserves were given assurances that they would never be sent in with the first wave and those assurances were totaly binned, the British goverment acted illegaly several times with refference to the Reserves Act and generaly betrayed us all. In short, we were sent to a war just as inapropriatly as any civilian and that's why I reffer to it as a draft.

Every single American over there Nation Guard or not knows the American army fights in a war roughly every 10 years on average. So if you join during a time of peace you know you could be called up for a war latter on. So die nationalist.

[Sam_b]

Every single American over there Nation Guard or not. Knows the American army fights in a war roughly every 10 years on average. So if you join during a time of peace you know you could be called up for a war latter on. So die nationalist.

So the army itself isn't to blame for sending these working class people to their deaths?

[STJ]

So the army itself isn't to blame for sending these working class people to their deaths?
They have a small part in the blame game but in America the president is the comander and chief. Bush and Obama are the real criminals. I want them to die in this war along with every worthless piece of shit in the army over there. Fuck them all.

[Sam_b]

They have a small part in the blame game but in America the president is the comander and chief. Bush and Obama are the real criminals. I want them to die in this war along with every worthless piece of shit in the army over there. Fuck them all.

I don't want soldiers to die, but if it happens as part of the resistance, so be it. The most important thing is that the imperialist armies are defeated, and you have to admit the majority of soldiers come from working class backgrounds and have been pounced upon in the most cynical way by the army.

[STJ]

I don't want soldiers to die, but if it happens as part of the resistance, so be it. The most important thing is that the imperialist armies are defeated, and you have to admit the majority of soldiers come from working class backgrounds and have been pounced upon in the most cynical way by the army.
Yes they are working class. But the working class in America tend to be those flag waving nationalist types.

[piet11111]

I don't want soldiers to die, but if it happens as part of the resistance, so be it. The most important thing is that the imperialist armies are defeated, and you have to admit the majority of soldiers come from working class backgrounds and have been pounced upon in the most cynical way by the army.

yes they are working class but they knew they where signing up with the very real probability of being send out to fight a war.
and when it comes to picking an iraqi citizen over an american that knowingly signed up to be part of an imperialist army i pick the iraqi every time because he/she did not have the luxury of deciding whether to fight in a war or not.

[und]

This has turned into an interesting conversation. My take is that because the soldiers knowingly singed up to go to war and kill millions of innocent people, most of us on this forum have little resentment when they die. However, every life is a life, and everyone's view can be changed. What would you think if this was your brother going into war and dying, without knowing any better?

[Cumannach]

You join an imperialist army you bear the full responsibility for your actions. Ignorance or poverty is no excuse.

[und]

You join an imperialist army you bear the full responsibility for your actions. Ignorance or poverty is no excuse.
What creates the kind of mentality that leads people to war? Capitalism. People are being brainwashed in our society and until we crush the capitalist system, people will continue to act like puppets for the government. Most people see it as "normal" for someone to join the army, certainly not how I see it; meaning a complete betrayal of the working class.

[Dr Mindbender]

You join an imperialist army you bear the full responsibility for your actions. Ignorance or poverty is no excuse.

You work for a multinational corporation like mcdonalds and you assist in its wake of ecological devastation and shitty business practice. Is ignorance or poverty still not an excuse?

:rolleyes:

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm more than a little shocked. I've been reading comments condeming the most exploited and abused parts of the working class left, right and centre. When has it ever been okay to pick and choose which proletarians you consider to be excused for falling for the capitalist propaganda that surrounds them 24/7? Yes, it's a job that reinforces the power of the bourgeois, but what do you think you're doing when you're working for the bourgeois in civvie street and piping them with more profit? We're all just as guilty as the enlisted soldiers, possibly more, because unlike them we can walk away at any time on a whim without having the RMP (quite possibly the most evil of the evil) hunting you down, beating you to within an inch of your life and throwing you into jail.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I'm more than a little shocked. I've been reading comments condeming the most exploited and abused parts of the working class left, right and centre.

Well I was more than a little shocked to read what you wrote about one of the most abused parts of the working class in Europe ( the struggling proletariat of the occupied six counties).

Do you have the same attitude towards the hired guns of "illegal" organized crime?

Last time I heard they had the dole in the United Klandom...not exactly they it gives you a life of abundance but at the same time it keeps you from falling into anything like the world's poorest 30 per cent.

[ls]

Well I was more than a little shocked to read what you wrote about one of the most abused parts of the working class in Europe ( the struggling proletariat of the occupied six counties).

Do you have the same attitude towards the hired guns of "illegal" organized crime?

Last time I heard they had the dole in the United Klandom...not exactly they it gives you a life of abundance but at the same time it keeps you from falling into anything like the world's poorest 30 per cent.

What the fuck, you're a fucking Irish nationalist third worldist - what a contradictory set of beliefs. No wonder nothing you say makes any sense whatsoever.


..
but seriously i only sympathize with the soldiers that are drafted.

Why? There are so many in the USA that join the army because they are so poor, some of them at the most ridiculously young ages. How is that not preying on them in the same way? In some ways it's worse, it's like voluntary slavery.

[Bitter Ashes]

The dole capped in the UK is £45 a week with £30 a week housing benefit if you're 16-25. Compared to £60 a week for over 25's on dole and up to £90 a week housing benefit for a single person and even higher if you're a couple, or have kids.

Even if you work, national minimum wage is lower for younger workers (£5.73ph for over 22's, £4.77ph 18-21, £3.53ph for 16-17 year olds). You're also explicitly refused working tax credits to top up your earnings until you're 25 and the £35 a week housing benefit cap still applies.

What's intresting about these ages? Well, these are the ages where the army targets its recruitment the most. On one hand you're offered £4k benefits, £5.5k fulltime job, or £16k wage for a Private in the army, with no housing costs, no food costs, etc. And lets be honest too, how much discrimination exists against young people in employment?

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published last year that for the minimum standard of living in the UK, not counting the cost of running a car, or rent, should be £13.4k a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7481927.stm

You do the maths

[PeaderO'Donnell]

What the fuck, you're a fucking Irish nationalist third worldist - what a contradictory set of beliefs. No wonder nothing you say makes any sense whatsoever.

Well you will have to define what you mean by nationalist.

The "nationalist" working class of the occupied six counties were and still arguably are one of the most abused sections of the european population.

The information and arguments of Monkey Smashing Heaven seems to me to be very convincing and all the arguments against them sound like wishful thinking.

Another Republican Socialist on this forum has expressed sympathy with Monkey Smashes Heaven. An Irish Republican Socialist blog has linked with their analysis of Ireland. They support the struggle here against British colonialism...so not so strange after all.

My question remains...do you feel the same about the hired guns of organized "illegal" crime as you do about the "Toms"?

[Bitter Ashes]

Okay. In answer to your question, yes I do as a generalisation. They can be unpleasant as indivuduals, but at the end of the day they're still working for the bourgeois. Just because the bourgeois have deceided that the bosses are illegal doesnt change the fact that there's a proletarian-bourgeois relationship present
edit: Just please be careful that this doesnt turn into a "are the lumpenproletarians still proletarians" debate?

[Pirate Utopian]

I dont think we should dismiss soldiers as per se class enemies.

If you come from an impoverished background and you heard all about how they help your education and have all sorts of great deals without alot of requirements, what can you do?

You should know how much they specifically target impoverished aera's and especially minorities to join the army.

[STJ]

I dont think we should dismiss soldiers as per se class enemies.

If you come from an impoverished background and you heard all about how they help your education and have all sorts of great deals without alot of requirements, what can you do?

You should know how much they specifically target impoverished aera's and especially minorities to join the army.

Thats the problem you get all those government benefits to go out and kill innocent civillans in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few years ago i was at the Uni. i paid for it with Student Loans. Not one time did i think boy i need to join the army to pay for the Uni.

[NecroCommie]

I dont condemn soldiers for being soldiers. For example: during peace time, or in peaceful missions soldiers are just another profession for me. But I do condemn every single soldier that dares to take the rifle against their class comrades.

So to put it simply: The moment you are given the order to shoot at someone from the working class, I expect you to decline no matter the consequenses. If you at this point obey your officer, you deserve every single hardship you encounter. Thus ---> Coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan = dirty imperialist swine.

[AvanteRedGarde]

There are so many in the USA that join the army because they are so poor, some of them at the most ridiculously young ages. How is that not preying on them in the same way? In some ways it's worse, it's like voluntary slavery.

The poverty draft is a myth. The bottom 20% of American society is underrepresented in the military. Go peddle your bullshit on a web forum dedicated to commonly held misconceptions.

Another imperialist troop dead? Good. I hope Afghanistan and Iraq become mass graves for imperialist troops.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I dont condemn soldiers for being soldiers. For example: during peace time, or in peaceful missions soldiers are just another profession for me. But I do condemn every single soldier that dares to take the rifle against their class comrades.

So to put it simply: The moment you are given the order to shoot at someone from the working class, I expect you to decline no matter the consequenses. If you at this point obey your officer, you deserve every single hardship you encounter. Thus ---> Coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan = dirty imperialist swine.

This is honestly retarded as fuck. Give me a point in history when there was peace? It's like saying the bourgeoisie is neutral between the hours of 5pm and 8am.

[NecroCommie]

As a better example I might offer my dear friends, who went to the army, and based it with learning to fight in a future revolution. So they are in the army, but would betray the army the moment any fighting would happen. These kinds of soldiers are OK in my books. Needless to say though, that these kinds of soldiers are a diminishing minority.

[Bitter Ashes]

So to put it simply: The moment you are given the order to shoot at someone from the working class, I expect you to decline no matter the consequenses. If you at this point obey your officer, you deserve every single hardship you encounter. Thus ---> Coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan = dirty imperialist swine.
I've really got to ask, but do you even know what those consequences may be? I think you may be more than a little neieve about what goes on within the military if you're so ready to demand that.

Also, if you're reffering to the Republican Guard and Taliban as working class then why are the Coalition soliders not working class too? Shouldnt you be equaly condemning them for shooting at British and American working class?

[NecroCommie]

I've really got to ask, but do you even know what those consequences may be? I think you may be more than a little neieve about what goes on within the military if you're so ready to demand that.

Also, if you're reffering to the Republican Guard and Taliban as working class then why are the Coalition soliders not working class too? Shouldnt you be equaly condemning them for shooting at British and American working class?
I think I do, since quite often the punishment for desertion is death. I've learned my share of the army, my father being a junior officer, and military being a fundamental part of the very Finnish culture.

And I dont think that the Iraqi resistance is necessarily for the working class, but more like the lesser of the two evils. As said earlier, ignorance is no reason for "evil". The insurgents have at least a shread of logic in their vendetta aginst the US, as some have personal grievances regarding the war. Coalition troops only go to war because of some filthy nationalism, or to be cool.

[STJ]

Every single soldier fighting in Irag and Afghanistan is a class traitor piece of shit. I hope they all die over there.

[LeninBalls]

Every single soldier fighting in Irag and Afghanistan is a class traitor piece of shit. I hope they all die over there.

Badass

[STJ]

I've really got to ask, but do you even know what those consequences may be? I think you may be more than a little neieve about what goes on within the military if you're so ready to demand that.

Also, if you're reffering to the Republican Guard and Taliban as working class then why are the Coalition soliders not working class too? Shouldnt you be equaly condemning them for shooting at British and American working class?
So why did you join the army do you enjoy killing women and children?

[Sam_b]

STJ: I would reccomend you read some of the posts here typing up entrace to the army with economic reasoning, and how the majority of soldiers come from poor, working-class areas. A coincidence?

[Bitter Ashes]

So why did you join the army do you enjoy killing women and children?
I already said why I joined earlier in the thread and explained the reasoning behind in quite some detail.

As for the killings of women and children I believe you want to direct your complaints towards the PMCs, Republican Guard, or sectarian militas that operate in Iraq. If your complaint reffers to Afghanistan might I suggest trying to bring it up with certain Taliban warlords, or again, the PMCs?

It's also worth pointing out that I was only 7 days past my 18th birthday on the day of the invasion and I'm female. So, what if somebody had shot me?

[STJ]

STJ: I would reccomend you read some of the posts here typing up entrace to the army with economic reasoning, and how the majority of soldiers come from poor, working-class areas. A coincidence?
Read my post i quoted PU on this page regarding this.

[Sam_b]

Yes, STJ, and it doesn't make any real sense. You got the qualifications to get into university. Well done. A lot of your fellow working class people didn't though, and were faced with the prospect of a starvation living on government unemployment benefits. Which is hardly enough to live on, and yes i've been on it before.

So i'm not condonimg people entering the army, I'm understanding of why they would go and join the army, at the same time as holding these people up as victims of the army propaganda and how it flexes most of its recruitment muscles in these areas. In one high school in Ibrox, for example, they even took a helicopter with them.

So no, your two line response isn't good enough to provide an explaination of the economical aspects of joining the army, and your 'gung ho I hope they all die' attitude is actually nothing more than cpontempt for other members of the working class.

[STJ]

I already said why I joined earlier in the thread and explained the reasoning behind in quite some detail.

As for the killings of women and children I believe you want to direct your complaints towards the PMCs, Republican Guard, or sectarian militas that operate in Iraq. If your complaint reffers to Afghanistan might I suggest trying to bring it up with certain Taliban warlords, or again, the PMCs?

It's also worth pointing out that I was only 7 days past my 18th birthday on the day of the invasion and I'm female. So, what if somebody had shot me?

Do females fight on the front line in Englands army?

[Bitter Ashes]

Read my post i quoted PU on this page regarding this.
You pointed out that your family have a good credit rating and that for such families there are options available to put themselves in debt to get higher education. I wasnt entirely sure how that relates to low wages and welfare benefits for young people in civvie street compared to the high salary and perks of the military for young people though.

[Bitter Ashes]

Do females fight on the front line in Englands army?
Women are not allowed to join combat corps such as infantry, armoured corps or air corps, but otherwise yes. I'm not going to reveal exactly what my job was in the army, but needless to say that we're not FOBbits and all corps are infantry trained and expected to be used as such and are also able to operate independantly in the field.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Every single soldier fighting in Irag and Afghanistan is a class traitor piece of shit. I hope they all die over there.

Can't you understand how some people become brainwashed, indoctrinated into joining the army and whilst they're in the army they become brainwashed further? That some people have no prospects and feel their only option is to join the army. And your calling them class traitors.

[STJ]

Can't you understand how some people become brainwashed, indoctrinated into joining the army and whilst they're in the army they become brainwashed further? That some people have no prospects and feel their only option is to join the army. And your calling them class traitors.
Brainwashed into joining the army??? hahahahahahahah:lol: Its called flag waving nationalist losers. Thats who joins the army.

[LeninBalls]

Brainwashed into joining the army??? hahahahahahahah:lol: Its called flag waving nationalist losers. Thats who joins the army.

Unless you can prove every voluntary soldier is a flag waving nationalist that can't wait to kill some muslim kids in the name of the Queen, fuck off back to Chit Chat or something.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

So, what if somebody had shot me?

They would have been in their rights under international law.

They would have been resisting imperialism.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Unless you can prove every voluntary soldier is a flag waving nationalist that can't wait to kill some muslim kids in the name of the Queen, fuck off back to Chit Chat or something.

That is like asking someone to prove that every hired killer of the mafia is not a cold blooded psychopath.


The average wage for the UK is £462 a week which would put you in the world's richest 2 per cent. That is what the British army is there to protect.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

If you earned that in a year you would be in the world 50 per cent richest though admittedly not by much.

http://globalrichlist.com/

[STJ]

You pointed out that your family have a good credit rating and that for such families there are options available to put themselves in debt to get higher education. I wasnt entirely sure how that relates to low wages and welfare benefits for young people in civvie street compared to the high salary and perks of the military for young people though.
Well let me point out the facts.
You can go to any Uni, Tech School, Auto Repair School ETC. in this counrty and pay for it with Student Loans. Low income familys is who this program was designed to help. My dad works in a factory hardly middle class and after my mom died he had to declare bankruptcy. If your parents make to much money you have a hard time getting Student Loans not the other way around. So once again no need to join the army unless your a piece of shit nationalist.

[LeninBalls]

That is like asking someone to prove that every hired killer of the mafia is not a cold blooded psychopath.


The average wage for the UK is £462 a week which would put you in the world's richest 2 per cent. That is what the British army is there to protect.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

If you earned that in a year you would be in the world 50 per cent richest though admittedly not by much.

http://globalrichlist.com/

Yeah ok. I'm not exactly sticking up for the army, I agree with what Cumannach said earlier, that if you sign up for the army you are a part of an imperialist killing machine and you take full responsibility. The only point I'm making is that not every person that signs up for the army is a "flag waving nationalist" and it's bullshit to say so. I know for a fact there are some that just see the army as a job, with money and security, are driven to join the army because capitalist life offers not much favourable alternatives and that not everyone signs up because they just can't wait anymore to KILL SOME HAJJI FUCKER OOOOO RAH.

Not everyone views the army with the same consciousness as us, to our dissapointment. Majority of the people see it as a job like earlier, not a capitalist bourgeoisie imperialist opressing rain of terror (which it is no doubt).

Fuck, my dad was in the army because he couldn't into college. My cousin was in the British army in the 90s, because he couldn't find a job. Fuck me if he gave a flying shit about the Union Jack and the Queen.

[Sam_b]

So how come its working class students who drop out of uni most often, citing debt as a problem?

Go back and address my post at the bottom of page 2 which shows your line to make absolutely no sense.

[STJ]

I love how all of you Europeans are experts on how things work in America.:rolleyes:

[STJ]

So how come its working class students who drop out of uni most often, citing debt as a problem?

Go back and address my post at the bottom of page 2 which shows your line to make absolutely no sense.
I think thats because of the skyrocketing cost of the Uni. They dont want to take on that much debt.

[LeninBalls]

I love how all of you Europeans are experts on how things work in America.:rolleyes:

Yet you assert how all British, Europeans, are flag waving nationalists... :confused:

[Sam_b]

I love how all of you Europeans are experts on how things work in America

I believe the title of this thread is "Another UK troop dead in Afghanistan".

That, and you've just proven my point. The spiralling cost of uni. Which makes an army university scholarship much more appealing to a lot of people.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

STJ, you are so blind. I would actually say most of the people in the army aren't nationalists before they join. They just don't see any other way out, the army seems a good career choice. Upon entering the army they will brainwash you tae fuck. You will in most likelihood end up as a nationalist.

[Jazzratt]

...Flag waving nationalists...

Who the hell do you think is shooting at these people? Just anoither gang of nationalists. All the crowing about working class men and women (on both sides) getting shot up is absolutely dispicable whether your excuse is "anti-imperialism" or "spreading democracy in the middle east".

[STJ]

Yes, STJ, and it doesn't make any real sense. You got the qualifications to get into university. Well done. A lot of your fellow working class people didn't though, and were faced with the prospect of a starvation living on government unemployment benefits. Which is hardly enough to live on, and yes i've been on it before.

So i'm not condonimg people entering the army, I'm understanding of why they would go and join the army, at the same time as holding these people up as victims of the army propaganda and how it flexes most of its recruitment muscles in these areas. In one high school in Ibrox, for example, they even took a helicopter with them.

So no, your two line response isn't good enough to provide an explaination of the economical aspects of joining the army, and your 'gung ho I hope they all die' attitude is actually nothing more than cpontempt for other members of the working class.
Once again your wrong we have Community Colleges here that anyone can go to your grades in Highschool dont matter. After two years in that Community College you can tranfer to a Uni. So again you dont have clue how things work in America.

[Sam_b]

Again STJ, the point is we were discussing the British army.

[ls]

So how come its working class students who drop out of uni most often, citing debt as a problem?

Go back and address my post at the bottom of page 2 which shows your line to make absolutely no sense.

But Sam, first world working-class students are just as guilty of furthering imperialism as the soldier shouting "die muslims die" and killing them on the battlefield, that stems from the crime of being from the first world. Clearly the only solution is for us all to kill ourselves (that includes you too Peader).

[AvanteRedGarde]

This is idealism and Utopian fantasy divorced from real world conditions. We should just be honest with ourselves and write off the military. They are not coming to the side of radicals.

If you disagree, prove it. Prove that soldiers are capable of revolutionary internationalist class consciousness. I don't care how much agitation and mass work you have to do, I want to see you prove your lofty hypothesis that they should not be written off as a revolutionary vehicle.


Who the hell do you think is shooting at these people? Just anoither gang of nationalists. All the crowing about working class men and women (on both sides) getting shot up is absolutely dispicable whether your excuse is "anti-imperialism" or "spreading democracy in the middle east".

Equating invasions and CIA covert operations against a nation is quite different than resistance to invasion and CIA ops. The fact that you would equate the two is fuck unbelievable (well, after spending a bit of time on revleft, not really). Grow the fuck up.

And working class, my ass. What they fuck do soldiers produce? Death and cancer clusters? Please tell me how these people, as soldiers, are 'working class.' Moreover, explain your hard-on for the 'working class' given that it generally thinks your are a fucking lunatic.

In reality, U.S. soldiers are losers who couldn't apply themselves, have a fetish for killing enemies and/or needed a rigid top down social conformity imposed on them for various reasons.

More to the point, U.S. soldier are the fucking pigs of the world. They are the living, breathing, collective stick that imperialism wields over the world's oppressed peoples.

But in the end, as it relates to this conversation, equating imperialism and its shock-troops with oppressed peoples and their resistance fighters (whom aren't getting free ride to college BTW), de-facto lets imperialism off the hook. That's the only despicable thing I'm looking at right now.

[jake williams]

Here's just one thing I noticed:

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/3632/afghanistan.jpg

[Wanted Man]

Here's just one thing I noticed:

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/3632/afghanistan.jpg
Nice. I also don't understand why some people here apparently want me to feel bad about the death of British (or American, or Dutch, for that matter) soldiers in Afghanistan. Maybe the dead Afghans are somehow not "working class" enough?

Oh wait, the imperialists didn't do that, but the Republican Guard and the Taliban warlords. Always nice to blame the enemy or "rogue elements"...

[Bitter Ashes]

Still wasnt British Army though was it?
*Adds "The Bryl Cream Boys" to the list*

edit: Just realised that I was bieng a bit insensative actualy. It is disgusting that the USAF would attack a village like that again. They never seem to learn *sighs*

[Sam_b]

But Sam, first world working-class students are just as guilty of furthering imperialism as the soldier shouting "die muslims die" and killing them on the battlefield, that stems from the crime of being from the first world. Clearly the only solution is for us all to kill ourselves (that includes you too Peader).

I cannot induce or not if this is meant to be sarcasm or not, but if it isn't, fuck that anti working-class third worldist bullshit. That is all.

[STJ]

The army troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are flag waving nationalist class traitors whos deaths i enjoy.

[JimmyJazz]

obviously all soldiers are irredeemable reactionaries, and the Iraq War is not radicalizing any of them:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7953

[STJ]

STJ, you are so blind. I would actually say most of the people in the army aren't nationalists before they join. They just don't see any other way out, the army seems a good career choice. Upon entering the army they will brainwash you tae fuck. You will in most likelihood end up as a nationalist.
Why join the army unless your a flag waving nationalist who enjoys killing innocent women and children?

[Sam_b]

Why join the army unless your a flag waving nationalist who enjoys killing innocent women and children?

This has been answered several times in this thread, and your continuation of parroting that line almost betrays a certain element of detachment from the working class.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yes they are working class. But the working class in America tend to be those flag waving nationalist types.

Hey don't stop there.

Blacks make up about 10% of the population and slightly less than 30% of the military (at least, that much of the Army I'm pretty sure).

Obviously they are the biggest nationalist zombie flag-wavers this country has ever come across.


We should all get very vocal about how we want all the soldiers to die. The Republicans need some help :rolleyes:

And seriously, maybe 1 out of ever 10 servicemen or women joined because they want to go to some faraway desert and get shot at. I'd bet the numbers are slightly higher for Marines, but that's about it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Why join the army unless your a flag waving nationalist who enjoys killing innocent women and children?

Well because you feel as though you are isoloated, you can't get a job and you feel as if the army is the best career choice. As LeninBalls stated earlier, his dad and cousin both joined the army becasue they felt they had no other option. They weren't flag waving nationalists.

[Andropov]

Who the hell do you think is shooting at these people? Just anoither gang of nationalists. All the crowing about working class men and women (on both sides) getting shot up is absolutely dispicable whether your excuse is "anti-imperialism" or "spreading democracy in the middle east".
That is shocking.
So just let the Imperialist Army jackboot its way through the world at its own discretion?
I guess the NAZI's shouldnt have been shot either as alot of German soldiers were just working class lads?
You do realise that just because they are working class it does not give them some immunity?
They still must be accountable for their actions and still are imperialist pawns whos death is progressive in the wider context.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think another point that hasnt been made is that some people join the forces because it's an easy way to learn a trade, as well as obtain free qualifications and obtain a driving license for free. All these are very attractive if you're not from a financially well off background. I had dealings with the british armed forces before i turned to leftism, and in its ranks were members of the nationalist community of northern ireland - certainly not union jack waving jingo-ists by any standard.

I think some soliders probably regard being drafted to conflict as an occupational hazard- something they 'hope won't happen'. I remember a number of years ago an RAF serviceman was court martialed for going AWOL aftern discovering he'd been selected to go to Iraq.

[Bitter Ashes]

I think another point that hasnt been made is that some people join the forces because it's an easy way to learn a trade, as well as obtain free qualifications and obtain a driving license for free.
They even go further than that and offer you a HGV license. There's a waiting list of about a year, but it's worth a fortune.

[Dr Mindbender]

They even go further than that and offer you a HGV license. There's a waiting list of about a year, but it's worth a fortune.

There you. An HGV license in itself opens doors to a lucrative livliehood.

Its little wonder working class kids are lulled into joining, especially since some already come from military families who are urged into it by their fathers and siblings.

My stepfather who was an arsehole kept telling me to ''join the grenadier guards'' because according to him i was 'too ugly and stupid' to get a job anywhere else.

I think he was just bitter cause he left the army at 18 because his drill sergeant was giving him a hard time so he got his mother to buy him out :D

[Nakidana]

Yes, they were and denying it is ridiculous. Would you have joined the British, US or other imperialist armies during world war 2?

ROFLMAO, are you saying that the soviets should've just laid down their weapons and let the Nazis roll in on a red carpet? You do know that the Nazis were fiercely anti-communist right, that they exterminated leftists in concentration camps?

[Jazzratt]

ROFLMAO, are you saying that the soviets should've just laid down their weapons and let the Nazis roll in on a red carpet?

No. Go back to school, I hear they teach reading there these days.


You do know that the Nazis were fiercely anti-communist right, that they exterminated leftists in concentration camps?No shit. It's really quite irrelevant to the question I asked though. Would you have joined an imperialist army in order to oppose the nazis?

EDIT, just saw this gem:


I will say this, though. The Red Army mowed its way through 5 million Fascist pawns (including all of Germany's little "helpers") before finally getting a shot at the "chessplayer."

Nope, if we're going to take this metaphor to breaking point, they got as far as the king. The bourgeoisie still exist, they existed in the Soviet Union and they existed (obviously) across the rest of the world. Glorying historical "gains" for the left like this should embarass you.

[Nakidana]

No. Go back to school, I hear they teach reading there these days.

Cute, but really, you argue that the Nazi soldiers were working class and therefore shouldn't have been resisted with violent means.

What do you propose then? Meet the Nazis head on with flowers and cake? :lol:

[Sam_b]

What do you propose then? Meet the Nazis head on with flowers and cake?

Does that mean in certain situation you support working class people fighting and dying for imperialist powers?

[Dr Mindbender]

Does that mean in certain situation you support working class people fighting and dying for imperialist powers?

Well theres an argument that World war 2 is a special case because those who fought in it were fighting and dying against fascism.

So much so, the british government were willing to actively hire communist partisans because they knew they had the political commitment.

[Nakidana]

Does that mean in certain situation you support working class people fighting and dying for imperialist powers?

It means you and Jazzratt wouldn't mind Nazi occupation.

I'm sure the Jews and communists would be grateful. :rolleyes:

[ls]

Does that mean in certain situation you support working class people fighting and dying for imperialist powers?

You can talk with your and the SWP's support for Hamas, that's much much worse.

[Killfacer]

I would have fought in world war 2.

[Sam_b]

Well theres an argument that World war 2 is a special case because those who fought in it were fighting and dying against fascism.


So that makes it alright to advocate working class people fighting for the interests of imperialism? If the imperialist governments actually gave two shits about fighting fascism and nazism why was there a policy of appeasement in place right up until 1939? Fighting fascism doesn't necessarily mean we cheerlead and support the British Army, for example. Look at the instance of the Italian Resistance Movement, for example.


It means you and Jazzratt wouldn't mind Nazi occupation.

I'm sure the Jews and communists would be grateful.

What a heap of loaded and presumpative bollocks. No, it doesn't mean that, it means rather that we don't hold ridiculous fetishism for the glorious and so-called progressive Red Army during the conflict. Again, why do you feel workers need to rally round imperialist oppressor forces to conduct resistance to fascism?


You can talk with your and the SWP's support for Hamas, that's much much worse.

Aside from the ridiculous gutter-sniping which is off-topic, why do you believe that supporting anti-imperialist forces is 'much worse' than giving support for the imperialist ruling class?

[Dr Mindbender]

I
So that makes it alright to advocate working class people fighting for the interests of imperialism?
*facepalm*

No, but clearly when there is a strong possibility of the country being over-run by fascist invaders there is a big big difference.

The defeat of the nazis wasnt just in the interests of 'imperialism', it was also in the interests of social justice, democracy and any chance we may have had of a post capitalist society.



If the imperialist governments actually gave two shits about fighting fascism and nazism why was there a policy of appeasement in place right up until 1939?
Quite, but that is the mistake of the beourgioise who should not have been allowed to make that mistake. However i still don't accept that it gives the workers an excuse to lay back and say ''fuck you, its not our fault'' as the panzers rolled into dover.



Fighting fascism doesn't necessarily mean we cheerlead and support the British Army, for example. Look at the instance of the Italian Resistance Movement, for example.

Well, unfortunately for british workers, it was the british army who held all the guns and the only way you could fight fascism directly was to join the british army.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think theres a diffrence between joining an army to stop yourself and your mates and familys dieing then doing some idiotic "defense of teh mutherland" and then bigging up which ever reactionary organization you have had to attach yourself to for survival. Yes I understand that in some circimstances someone may have to kill isreali troops to stay alive (although arguing about the best way for people to stay alive on the otherside of the world seems fucking disgusting to me). But theres a diffrence between this and the SWPs "We r all hamaz lol - fapfapfpafpapfapfapfapfapfpafpafpapfapfpapfapfapfp afap Mullah fo life" bullshit since I may joined the UK army as self defense but I would not have fetishized it and pretended that the organization itself is progressive and il admit I wouldnt have thought very politicaly about it as I would be more concerned with not dieing.

Anyhoo iv derailed the topic like a anteater on crack and would like to point out the absoulte fucking disgrace it is cheering on some UK soilders death. Quite simply these people are capable of resistance (although this occurs on home turf) and it is fucking moronic to write them off. This isnt some go ahead for the bombing of civilains but mearly pointing out how fucked up it is to be cheering on the death of somone who was in all likely hood bullshited into joining the organization.

Officers however dont seem that capable of resistance so I dont really give a fuck about them. (And yes I would be apalled at the fetishization of the death of ordinary* somone working class german troop in ww2).

Basically sort you shit out.

*Gaurds however seem to develop a mentality that makes them incapable of resistance and also a tendency to become ****s.

[Dr Mindbender]

I would have fought in world war 2.

As would i, but not in the capacity of a monarch saluting knobhead.

[Sam_b]

Apart from the parroting of British imperialism's line which Ulster is cheerleading (I wouldn't have thought a moderator of anti-fascism was naive enough to think that the British ruling class cared about 'social justice'), I want to bring this ridiculous statement up:


Well, unfortunately for british workers, it was the british army who held all the guns and the only way you could fight fascism directly was to join the british army.

Because in a thread with a lot of poor dodges and strawmen arguments, this is perhaps the poorest. To say that the British Army would have been the only choice at a time where military control of Italy under Mussolini was harsher is insane. None of those reasons stopped the French, Italian, the Czech Resistance whilst Czechoslovakia was under Nazi protectorate status from conducting armed defense. I would like to think that if we were alive in World War Two we would not be cheerleading people into joining the British army because we would achieve some sort of ridiculous bourgeois sense of 'social justice'. I think its disgusting.

Whenever you like it or not, when you are someone who (supposedly) shows a sound understanding of revolutionary and class-struggle politics, saying that in World War 2 you would have joined the British Army is (again like it or not) supporting the advancement of an imperialist power. Even if you claim that you won't salute.

[BobKKKindle$]

No, but clearly when there is a strong possibility of the country being over-run by fascist invaders there is a big big difference.Why? The only justification you've given for fighting on behalf of an imperialist power to defeat fascism is because Britain was a democracy, and allowing Nazi Germany to conquer Britain would lead to Jews and Communists being killed. Both of these arguments are seriously misinformed. The first argument could also have been used to justify taking the side of Britain during the first imperialist war because Germany and the other Central Powers were also under the control of authoritarian governments at that point in time, whereas the British proletariat had won some democratic gains of varying significance, such as universal suffrage. In other words, I don't see why you're happy to condone fighting for imperialism during WW2, but don't adopt the same position for WW1 - assuming, of course, that you wouldn't have called on the working class to fight for the bourgeoisie during the earlier conflict. In connection with the above, you also seem to ignore that even in countries where democratic gains have been won, such as Britain and the United States, these gains are undermined by the presence of vast inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth, as well as the structural pressures on the state to govern in a way that serves the class interests of the bourgeoisie. If we agree that even in "democratic" countries there is a severe lack of real democracy and freedom due to the ways that capitalism allows the bourgeoisie to exercise control over the state (again, I'm assuming that this is your opinion) why is fighting for a a "democratic" state legitimate when workers are going to die as a result, and when victory will not challenge bourgeois rule?

On the second argument, I think it's clear that leftists such as myself who are oppossed to British workers fighting on behalf of the British state do not believe that workers should ever simply sit back and allow fascism to triumph throughout the world - we think that resistance to fascism should be led by working-class organizations, and carried out as part of a more general struggle against the class rule of the bourgeoisie, instead of being used by the bourgeoisie as a means to stabilize capitalism and further their own class interests. In addition, by emphasizing the fate of Jews under fascism, you are glossing over the crimes that were committed by British imperialism during the war, such as the Bengal famine in 1943, which caused the deaths of around 3 million people as a result of either starvation or malnutrition. What reason did Indian workers have to fight on behalf of the imperialist power that oppressed them, and deprived them of basic necessities such as food?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I be intrested in how samb would travel to these areas from britain without being detained and how he would make contact with and join these groups.

[Sam_b]

I be intrested in how samb would travel to these areas from britain without being detained and how he would make contact with and join these groups.

Absolutely irrelevant and speculatarive. Unless you're trying to suggest its okay to fight for imperialism because its somehow easier to find than the underground :rolleyes:

[ls]

Absolutely irrelevant and speculatarive. Unless you're trying to suggest its okay to fight for imperialism because its somehow easier to find than the underground :rolleyes:

What a strawman, your entire argument is speculative anyway.

[BobKKKindle$]

What a strawman, your entire argument is speculative anyway.

It's not speculative at all. We are entering a period of growing class struggle, and it's entirely possible that a country in which class struggle becomes so intense that it challenges the power of the bourgeoisie will witness the growth of fascism as a political force, to the extent that a fascist party is able to recruit the support of the bourgeoisie, and take power. If that country then seeks to expand its control of the world's markets and resources, as frequently occurs during recessions when the bourgeoisie is pressured to obtain new outlets for capital and commodities, it will inevitably come into conflict with other imperialist powers - which may be "democracies". If that conflict erupted into an inter-imperialist war, then we can only assume that most of the people who have posted in this thread would want the workers of the "democracy" to sign up and fight on behalf of their bourgeoisie, because the war would involve fighting against fascism. By adopting that position, you would all be abandoning any degree of internationalism, and workers would be massacred as a result, with no benefit whatsoever for the international working class.

[Dr Mindbender]

Apart from the parroting of British imperialism's line which Ulster is cheerleading (I wouldn't have thought a moderator of anti-fascism was naive enough to think that the British ruling class cared about 'social justice'), I want to bring this ridiculous statement up:

I never claimed that the british beourgioise did care about social justice, merely that it was a matter of common interest from both the perspective of the british establishment and of the british left wing that the nazis were vanquished.

The nazis had our cards marked, even before the end of the war. If the nazis had invaded and our comrades of the day adopted the line of Sam b, we'd be off to the concentration camps without a struggle for fear of 'collaborating with the ruling class'.




Because in a thread with a lot of poor dodges and strawmen arguments, this is perhaps the poorest. To say that the British Army would have been the only choice at a time
and how else pretell, would a normal british worker under Churchill's britain obtain a firearm and opportunites to fight the fascist onslaught?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

. Unless you're trying to suggest its okay to fight for imperialism because its somehow easier to find than the underground :rolleyes:


No im suggesting self defense is A ok and if unfortunatly the british army are the only people who will give you a gun and training then so be it. Because at the end of the day when your and your families life is on the line then self defense is a priority holier then thou wankfantist pretend leftism has no role in it. However there is a diffrence between helping stopping your family ending up looking like cheese-graters and fetishizing the reactionary movement which you have the misfortune to have to use for guns and training. There is certainly no need for any "defense of sacrad britain" or any of the wank nor is there any need to pretend that the army is anything other then an imperlist armed group and certainly not some kind of savior of the working class like the student wankers party treats hamas.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It's not speculative at all. We are entering a period of growing class struggle, and it's entirely possible that a country in which class struggle becomes so intense that it challenges the power of the bourgeoisie will witness the growth of fascism as a political force, to the extent that a fascist party is able to recruit the support of the bourgeoisie, and take power. If that country then seeks to expand its control of the world's markets and resources, as frequently occurs during recessions when the bourgeoisie is pressured to obtain new outlets for capital and commodities, it will inevitably come into conflict with other imperialist powers - which may be "democracies". If that conflict erupted into an inter-imperialist war, then we can only assume that most of the people who have posted in this thread would want the workers of the "democracy" to sign up and fight on behalf of their bourgeoisie, because the war would involve fighting against fascism. By adopting that position, you would all be abandoning any degree of internationalism, and workers would be massacred as a result, with no benefit whatsoever for the international working class.

Personally I dont give a toss about the winner of imp wars (because lets face it the loser is always the working class) however I would join an army if it decreased the chances of me ending up in a box or my family ending up in a box.

[BobKKKindle$]

merely that it was a matter of common interest from both the perspective of the british establishment and of the british left wing that the nazis were vanquished.So when Lenin, Engels, and Marx spoke of the class interests of the bourgeoisie and proletariat as being "irreconcilable", i.e. mutually oppossed to each other, were they wrong? You seem to be suggesting that there are some situations where the proletariat and bourgeoisie have a set of common interests and should work together. I'm a Marxist, so I don't believe that - I don't think that the proletariat has anything to gain by fighting on behalf of the bourgeoisie, in the same way that the proletariat doesn't have anything to gain from accepting lower wages and poorer working conditions, and that's why I wouldn't have called for workers to join an imperialist army.


Because at the end of the day when your and your families life is on the line then self defenseIsn't that even more true of workers who live in countries that are not themselves imperialist powers, but are under attack from imperialist powers, or states which act on behalf of imperialist powers, as in the case of the Gaza Strip and Israel? Yet, you obviously don't think that workers should join Hamas (who are also the only source of arms in Gaza) and it seems that you wouldn't want Hamas to win in the event of a military conflict with Israel. Isn't there a tension between your line on Palestine and other oppressed nations, and your line on WW2?

[Dr Mindbender]

So when Lenin, Engels, and Marx spoke of the class interests of the bourgeoisie and proletariat as being "irreconcilable", i.e. mutually oppossed to each other, were they wrong? You seem to be suggesting that there are some situations where the proletariat and bourgeoisie have a set of common interests and should work together. I'm a Marxist, so I don't believe that - I don't think that the proletariat has anything to gain by fighting on behalf of the bourgeoisie, in the same way that the proletariat doesn't have anything to gain from accepting lower wages and poorer working conditions, and that's why I wouldn't have called for workers to join an imperialist army.


Firstly i dont believe that Marx was an infallible prophet that was incapable of mistakes. I am a subscriber to marxist economics, but i dont follow his work religiously. Marx wasnt around during this era, and i dont think he could possibly have predicted the rise of fascism or it's effects.

Secondly, if it came to choosing between strapping a rifle to my back or watching the swastika banner unfurl down the houses of parliament as the meat wagons rolled in i think i know which i'd choose.

[Sam_b]

I never claimed that the british beourgioise did care about social justice, merely that it was a matter of common interest from both the perspective of the british establishment and of the british left wing that the nazis were vanquished.


So you seem to believe that fighting for an imperialist army was in the interests of the left. Interesting. It was in the interests of the British left-wing for a Nazi defeat, but why are you so persistant to do this through the mechanics of imperialism?


If the nazis had invaded and adopted the line of Sam b, we'd be off to the concentration camps without a struggle for fear of 'collaborating with the ruling class'.


Now this is merely specualtive bullshit. We can't say what will or will not have happened because the Nazis never invaded the British mainland. All you're doing is pulling emotive nonsense to try and swing the argument in your way: funnily enough, no, I wouldn't have wanted the British left to go to concentration camps.


and how else pretell, would a normal british worker under Churchill's britain obtain a firearm and opportunites to fight the fascist onslaught?

I'm not going to 'predict what would have happened' because that would be nonsense. I imagine, however, it would be a damn sight easier than in Italy under Mussolini or in the nazi protectorate of Czech lands.

Would you have advocated fighting for imperialism in WW1? So why would you in WW2? Its a ridiculous excuse to favour homegrown imperialism over another just because the other would have been worse. Thats the sort of politics that excuses socialists to vote Obama. At the end of the day you would have supported workers fighting for imperialism. End of story.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Isn't that even more true of workers who live in countries that are not themselves imperialist powers, but are under attack from imperialist powers, or states which act on behalf of imperialist powers, as in the case of the Gaza Strip and Israel? Yet, you obviously don't think that workers should join Hamas (who are also the only source of arms in Gaza) and it seems that you wouldn't want Hamas to win in the event of a military conflict with Israel. Isn't there a tension between your line on Palestine and other oppressed nations, and your line on WW2?




If somone has to kill isreali soilders for there own survival then so be it and if they have to get these weopens off hamas then so be it. However I will not cheerlead for reactionary orgainizations be they the british army or hamas. I will not pretend they serve any use to the working class other then the resources they may need to survive. I will not give any support to hamas or the british army but rather to the working class whose intrest it is not to pick the group they think will fuck them with more lube but to quite simply stay alive.

[Andropov]

Not at all. But you don't have to align yourself with any passing group of reactionaries just because they happen to be enemies of your enemies.
So now that we have established that imperiaism and occupation is not progressive.
Even Qu'ran bashing zealots like the Taliban defeating imperialist interests is progressive?

Yes, they were and denying it is ridiculous. Would you have joined the British, US or other imperialist armies during world war 2?
Of course not.

Perhaps it should give anyone claiming to hold the interests of the proletariat pause for thought, though. Rather than spouting the same tired bullshit.
Pause for thought?
I fail to see your point really.
We have established that imperialism is not progressive so defeating imperialism is progressive.
And the way you defeat an invading army is by killing their soldiers.
I really dont see your point.
It seems like an emotive point of view tbh, divorced from the material context fo the situation

They are pawns. The point of leftism is not to cheer the killing of one set of pawns by another but to burn the chessboard and shoot the players. Any less is reformist compromise at best and outright support for reactionary bourgeois movements at worst.
Of course they are pawns.
But willing pawns none the less who have chosen a reactionary path.
Just as those skinhead fascists in Europe are also pawns and many come from working class backgrounds.
But the context remains the same, try and win them over just like soldiers but if both refuse to comply then they must reap the whirlwind.

[BobKKKindle$]

Firstly i dont believe that Marx was an infallible prophet that was incapable of mistakes. I am a subscriber to marxist economics, but i dont follow his work religiously.I don't "follow" Marx either. He had a lot of good things to say about the nature of capitalism and history, but he also made quite a few mistakes. However, there's a simple issue here: do you agree that the interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie are irreconcilable, or do you think that there are some situations where the interests of those two classes are the same, and that they should work together when faced with one of those situations? If you think that the latter is more accurate, then could you give some explanation as to what exactly the proletariat had to gain from fighting on behalf of the bourgeoisie, given that the victory of the Allied Powers in WW2 allowed all of them to expand their control of the world's markets and resources, at the expense of Germany and the other defeated countries, and resulted in capitalism being strengthened for several decades after the war had ended?


Secondly, if it came to choosing between strapping a rifle to my back or watching the swastika banner unfurl down the houses of parliament as the meat wagons rolled in i think i know which i'd choose.That's a completely false dichotomy, as I've already explained. As an internationalist, I think that Marxists who were alive during WW2 should have called on the workers who were fighting for the bourgeoisie at the front to turn on their officers, and transform the inter-imperialist war into a civil war, conducted against the British bourgeoisie, as by doing so not only would they have been able to overthrow British capitalism (instantly giving political independence to the whole of the empire, as well as a major boost to the workers of the colonized countries in their struggles against "their own" ruling classes) they would also have smashed the nationalist chauvinism of the German proletariat and the proletariats of all the other countries that were participating in the war, creating the basis for an international socialist revolution. That would have been the progressive option. Instead, all of the so-called communist parties lined up behind their respective bourgeoisies, in the same way that the German SPD had done in 1914, by supporting the imperialist war. That's also what you're advocating.

[Dr Mindbender]

So you seem to believe that fighting for an imperialist army was in the interests of the left. Interesting. It was in the interests of the British left-wing for a Nazi defeat, but why are you so persistant to do this through the mechanics of imperialism?

Not the mechanics of imperalism for the sake of it, but the mechanics of practicality.

You've still failed to answer my question - How would I, as an average worker in the UK (not the Czech Rep or Italy) have obtained a weapon to fight Hitler's army?

I'll let you think long and hard about this one.




Now this is merely specualtive bullshit. We can't say what will or will not have happened because the Nazis never invaded the British mainland. All you're doing is pulling emotive nonsense to try and swing the argument in your way: funnily enough, no, I wouldn't have wanted the British left to go to concentration camps.
Funnilly enough, Hitlers generals had compiled a dossier of 'targets' they wanted to eliminate after a theoretical invasion of the UK and this is what would have happened.




I'm not going to 'predict what would have happened' because that would be nonsense. I imagine, however, it would be a damn sight easier than in Italy under Mussolini or in the nazi protectorate of Czech lands.

Oh for fucks sake,

yes but im not the one talking about Italy, you're the one that keeps bringing up Italy.




Would you have advocated fighting for imperialism in WW1?
No, i wouldnt have done, but the Kaiser didnt have ambitions of wiping out entire races. WW1 Germany and WW1 Britain represented the same brands of 'bad'.

World War 2 was entirely different purely on the basis of Germany's then ruling ideology.



So why would you in WW2?
For the reasons i've already given.

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't "follow" Marx either. He had a lot of good things to say about the nature of capitalism and history, but he also made quite a few mistakes. However, there's a simple issue here: do you agree that the interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie are irreconcilable, or do you think that there are some situations where the interests of those two classes are the same, and that they should work together when faced with one of those situations? If you think that the latter is more accurate, then could you give some explanation as to what exactly the proletariat had to gain from fighting on behalf of the bourgeoisie, given that the victory of the Allied Powers in WW2 allowed all of them to expand their control of the world's markets and resources, at the expense of Germany and the other defeated countries, and resulted in capitalism being strengthened for several decades after the war had ended?
No, i don't think the interests are the same, i think if anything the proletariat had more to lose under a nazi victory. Hitler admired the beourgioise as 'paragons of strength' and for them it would have been business as usual, providing they met the WASP criteria of course.

I think the proletariat had a duty to themselves to fight this by any means or vehicle available, and if the material conditions dictated joining the ruling class forces, then so be it. An average worker in the UK at that time could not get a weapon because they were owned and controlled by the armed forces. It is that simple.



That's a completely false dichotomy, as I've already explained. As an internationalist, I think that Marxists who were alive during WW2 should have called on the workers who were fighting for the bourgeoisie at the front to turn on their officers, and transform the inter-imperialist war into a civil war, conducted against the British bourgeoisie,
I quite agree, unfortunately in order to 'turn on your officer' you have to be an active soldier in the first place, which is what Sam b says you shouldnt become, under any circumstance.

[Sam_b]

You've still failed to answer my question - How would I, as an average worker in the UK (not the Czech Rep or Italy) have obtained a weapon to fight Hitler's army?

I'll let you think long and hard about this one.

I have absolutely no idea. How would I, being born four decades after the end of the war? Would you like me, praytell, to go back in time to try and find you an answer? This is a poor, poor argument and a way from distracting from the main point. A main point, you admit yourself: that you support imperialism when you believe it to be practical. There is no dodging this point, that you therefore give a certain amount of support to imperialism when you think it's needed. I find this to be incompatable with revolutionary leftism and indeed un-socialist.


Funnilly enough, Hitlers generals had compiled a dossier of 'targets' they wanted to eliminate after a theoretical invasion of the UK and this is what would have happened

An invasion which never happened, that is. So please don't pretend you can make serious political points on 'what if' situations. It takes a certain lack of faith in the working class to think that the Nazis would roll in and they would take it lying down.


yes but im not the one talking about Italy, you're the one that keeps bringing up Italy.


And you're the one which relies of suppositions to make arguments, and demanding that I can tell you about 'what if' situations. The point is that I don't see how this was less likely to happen, when under more authoritarian regimes there were resitance movements formed.


No, i wouldnt have done, but the Kaiser didnt have ambitions of wiping out entire races. WW1 Germany and WW1 Britain represented the same brands of 'bad'.

World War 2 was entirely different purely on the basis of Germany's then ruling ideology.


So you admit you support one imperialist power over another when push comes to shove.

Not very socialist, is it?

[Sam_b]

I quite agree, unfortunately in order to 'turn on your officer' you have to be an active soldier in the first place, which is what Sam b says you shouldnt become, under any circumstance.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot that the British Army had no numbers, no troops, no recruits until 1939:lol:

US, you're completely absurd.

[Killfacer]

As would i, but not in the capacity of a monarch saluting knobhead.

I can't tell if you're calling me a monarch saluting knobhead.

[BobKKKindle$]

I quite agree, unfortunately in order to 'turn on your officer' you have to be an active soldier in the first place, which is what Sam b says you shouldnt become, under any circumstance.If not a single worker had joined the the armed services then there would be no need to destroy the imperialist war machine from the inside because the lack of enthusiasm for the war would be a sign that workers were devoid of nationalist chauvinism, aware of of their class interests, completely hostile towards the bourgeoisie, and therefore ready for social revolution. Obviously, workers did sign up, and in that context it would have been wrong for Marxists to join them - instead, revolutionaries should have adopted the strategy that I described above as the best way to expose the fact that WW2 was an imperialist war that was being conducted in the interests of the bourgeoisie. This was the same strategy that Lenin used when he was faced with an imperialist war in the form of WW1, and it was partly through the use of this internationalist strategy (instead of following the lead of pseudo-Marxists like Plekhanov) that the Russian proletariat was won over to a program of revolution against the bourgeoisie, instead of continuing to fight and die in their millions until Russia or Germany scored a decisive victory.


I think the proletariat had a duty to themselves to fight this by any means or vehicle available, and if the material conditions dictated joining the ruling class forces, then so be itHowever, as I've already argued, the victory of Britain did not offer any benefits to the proletariat - in fact, workers were forced to accept bread rationing in the years immediately after the war when the bourgeoisie were congratulating themselves on having successfully defended British imperialism against a rival imperialist power, and capitalism was consolidated for several decades thereafter. Whether Nazism was defeated through an imperialist army, or a proletarian revolution directed against the British bourgeoisie, is not simply a matter of "practicality" and "mechanics" - the former signifies class compromise and an abdication of political independence, whereas the latter would lead to the liberation of the countries that had been subject to British colonialism, and would shatter the national chauvinism of proletarians throughout the world. This is evident from WW1 - a revolutionary situation emerged in Germany shortly after the Russian Revolution in 1917, due to the progressive example that had been set by the Bolsheviks, which showed the German proletariat that they had nothing to gain from the imperialist war.

[Dr Mindbender]

I have absolutely no idea. How would I, being born four decades after the end of the war?
So you admit you dont know what you're talking about? Thank you.



Would you like me, praytell, to go back in time to try and find you an answer? This is a poor, poor argument and a way from distracting from the main point. A main point, you admit yourself: that you support imperialism when you believe it to be practical. There is no dodging this point, that you therefore give a certain amount of support to imperialism when you think it's needed. I find this to be incompatable with revolutionary leftism and indeed un-socialist.
Firstly, i think you've got a skewed idea of imperialism. Imperalism implies seizing a land by force, taking its resources against the popular will of the people. This is precisely what the Germans were doing, only far worse because they were exterminating millions of people. I think to allow this, would be complicitly acting in the interests of imperialism much worse than storming the beach heads and killing their soldiers, dont you? I think what the americans and british did then, is certainly not analogous to their behaviour in iraq or afghanistan.




An invasion which never happened, that is. So please don't pretend you can make serious political points on 'what if' situations. It takes a certain lack of faith in the working class to think that the Nazis would roll in and they would take it lying down.
But thats what you support, since you think its wrong of them to accept the available means of armed resistance because they happened to be owned by the king.




And you're the one which relies of suppositions to make arguments, and demanding that I can tell you about 'what if' situations. The point is that I don't see how this was less likely to happen, when under more authoritarian regimes there were resitance movements formed.
How effective do you think they would have been in the end without British or American intervention?




So you admit you support one imperialist power over another when push comes to shove.

No, because as ive already pointed out, Kaisers Germany wasnt fucking nazi.

[Dr Mindbender]

Oh yeah, I totally forgot that the British Army had no numbers, no troops, no recruits until 1939:lol:
.

Perhaps i'm having a 'blonde moment' but i dont see why this tidbit is relevant.

[Jazzratt]

So now that we have established that imperiaism and occupation is not progressive.
Correct.


Even Qu'ran bashing zealots like the Taliban defeating imperialist interests is progressive?
Not correct.


Of course not.
But they were fighting your big fascist boogeyman, which by your logic that any opposition to reactionary ideas makes you progressive means they were progressive.


Pause for thought?
Yes it's where you stop parroting slogans and take a few minutes to mull over your ideas. Literally pausing to think.


I fail to see your point really.
Excuse me while I register extreme shock.


We have established that imperialism is not progressive so defeating imperialism is progressive.
Lots of things are progressive but it's childish to assume that people with a handful of progressive goals are progressive themselves. The emancipation of women, for example, is progressive but liberal feminists are not.


And the way you defeat an invading army is by killing their soldiers.

Imperialism isn't just an invading army for fuck's sake. It's like treating cancer with morphine, sure the pain is gone but the cancer is still there. The only way to defeat imperialism is by destroying capitalism. One group of proletarians killing another at the behest of a national bourgeoisie is getting no one anywhere.

I really dont see your point.
I know.


It seems like an emotive point of view tbh, divorced from the material context fo the situation
Your 'material analysis' of global politics is a shallow joke. It's simple oppurtunism.


Of course they are pawns.
But willing pawns none the less who have chosen a reactionary path.

Now who's "divorced from the material context fo the situation"? You're taking an idealist stand that it is simply reactionary ideas that are behind this rather than material conditions. It's handy for black and white worldview but isn't all that useful otherwise.


Just as those skinhead fascists in Europe are also pawns and many come from working class backgrounds.
So we should focus on attacking skinheads rather than trying to defeat capitalism. "Attack the symptoms comrade the disease can wait!"


But the context remains the same, try and win them over just like soldiers but if both refuse to comply then they must reap the whirlwind.
Stirring rhetoric. So when is a soldier or "fascist" irreedemable? And once they've passed that point we can kill them, I take it? How many? One? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? How about we shoot everyone and invade poland?

[Sam_b]

So you admit you dont know what you're talking about? Thank you.


My what shite. I'd challenge anyone to give a comprehensive account of a 'what if' situation. The fact is that your argument is based on presumption.


Firstly, i think you've got a skewed idea of imperialism. Imperalism implies seizing a land by force, taking its resources against the popular will of the people. This is precisely what the Germans were doing, only far worse because they were exterminating millions of people. I think to allow this, would be complicitly acting in the interests of imperialism much worse than storming the beach heads and killing their soldiers, dont you? I think what the americans and british did then, is certainly not analogous to their behaviour in iraq or afghanistan.


I think you have a poor grasp of what imperialism is. All of these powers were imperialists, and you even admit in this that you would support one faction of the bouregeoisie, British Imperialism, against another. And you somehow believe its fine for workers to get caught up in inter-imperialist conflicts and die for their interests.


But thats what you support, since you think its wrong of them to accept the available means of armed resistance because they happened to be owned by the king.


That answer doesn't really make much sense. So I apparently support the Nazis rolling into Britain because I don't think that workers should be fighting for the interests of the ruling class? Again, a bunch of 'what if' situations that don't even support your flimsy pro-imperialist arguments. You're a liberal.


How effective do you think they would have been in the end without British or American intervention?

Not all resistance movements were supported by a particular section of the ruling class. Again, you're just apologising for British and American imperialism because its better than Nazi imperialism. Any support for imperialism like this is anti-working class.


No, because as ive already pointed out, Kaisers Germany wasnt fucking nazi.

But it was imperialist, as were the Nazis, as were the British, as were the Americans. Don't try and weasel your way out of what is a reactionary and disgusting position. You have to admit that in WW2 you would not have been on the side of the working class, but on the side of fighting for imperialist interests.

[Andropov]

Correct.

Not correct.
Of course its correct.
They are infinetly more progressive than Imperialism.

But they were fighting your big fascist boogeyman, which by your logic that any opposition to reactionary ideas makes you progressive means they were progressive.
More than the Brits and Yanks were fighting the fascists.

Yes it's where you stop parroting slogans and take a few minutes to mull over your ideas. Literally pausing to think.
Sorry dear but I didnt parrot any slogan.
Just all I can see here is some chauvanistic apologism for imperialism.
You have recognised that Imperialism is not progressive so thus defeating it is progressive.
So who ever defeats it must have our short term support in doing such a task.

Excuse me while I register extreme shock.
And your funny too.

Lots of things are progressive but it's childish to assume that people with a handful of progressive goals are progressive themselves. The emancipation of women, for example, is progressive but liberal feminists are not.
Of course.
But we are supportive of the Taliban because of their policy on imperialism.
And in that context we are supportive of them.

Imperialism isn't just an invading army for fuck's sake. It's like treating cancer with morphine, sure the pain is gone but the cancer is still there. The only way to defeat imperialism is by destroying capitalism. One group of proletarians killing another at the behest of a national bourgeoisie is getting no one anywhere.
Of course that is all true.
But National Liberation is merely a platform to Socialism which eventually eradicates the whole cancer.

Your 'material analysis' of global politics is a shallow joke. It's simple oppurtunism.
Wrong its material analysis.
Its why Marx, Engels, Connolly, Lenin and Costello all recognised the fenians as progressive.
Because national Liberation is a stepping stone to Socialism

Now who's "divorced from the material context fo the situation"? You're taking an idealist stand that it is simply reactionary ideas that are behind this rather than material conditions. It's handy for black and white worldview but isn't all that useful otherwise.
Im not taking an idealist stand, im taking an objective analytical stand.
You are clouding a black and white situation with emotive drivel.

So we should focus on attacking skinheads rather than trying to defeat capitalism. "Attack the symptoms comrade the disease can wait!"
When did I say we should focus on attacking skinheads?
Your taking what I said and misrepresenting it.

Stirring rhetoric. So when is a soldier or "fascist" irreedemable?
When they set foot in an occupied country.

And once they've passed that point we can kill them, I take it?
Absolutely, we have an obligation to do so.

How many? One? Ten? A hundred? A thousand?How about we shoot everyone and invade poland?
Pointless emotive arguement.
How about you take a breather and calm yourself before you make me cry too.

[Sam_b]

Perhaps i'm having a 'blonde moment'

Do you find such stereotypes appropriate, especially when they are more often than not used in a sexist manner?

[Dr Mindbender]

My what shite. I'd challenge anyone to give a comprehensive account of a 'what if' situation. The fact is that your argument is based on presumption.
I think it's safe to say without much margin of error what would have happened if Hitler's reign in Europe was allowed to continue.

What makes you think he would have been content to stop at the beaches of Calais?

Had it not been for the allied intervention, what reason do we have to believe that he would not have succeeded in his extermination of the jews?

If Hitlers forces hadnt been divided in france, he'd have an extra 5 million men available to march into Moscow.



I think you have a poor grasp of what imperialism is. All of these powers were imperialists,
I accept that, but as ive already stated World War 2 was in my opinion a special case. The allies werent in France with imperialist motives, they were there to prevent the advance of the Germans and the despical regime which they represented.


and you even admit in this that you would support one faction of the bouregeoisie, British Imperialism, against another. And you somehow believe its fine for workers to get caught up in inter-imperialist conflicts and die for their interests.
I think ive already covered this in my reply to bob, the proletarian stood to lose more from a nazi victory than the beourgioise did.

The same does not hold true for other conflicts, so WW2 is unique.




That answer doesn't really make much sense. So I apparently support the Nazis rolling into Britain because I don't think that workers should be fighting for the interests of the ruling class? Again, a bunch of 'what if' situations that don't even support your flimsy pro-imperialist arguments. You're a liberal.
No, youre spinning my words and the context of what i said. If you acknowledge the material conditions of the day, there were no guns littering the street that workers could just pick up. They were all owned by the forces, and the only way you could obtain one was to join up. Using all means available to prevent the nazi invasion does not equal fighting for the ruling class.



Not all resistance movements were supported by a particular section of the ruling class. Again, you're just apologising for British and American imperialism because its better than Nazi imperialism. Any support for imperialism like this is anti-working class.
My point was, all of the resistance movements were infinitely weaker than the German army, and served to do little more than postpone the inevitable in the event that the allies didnt show up.




But it was imperialist, as were the Nazis, as were the British, as were the Americans. Don't try and weasel your way out of what is a reactionary and disgusting position. You have to admit that in WW2 you would not have been on the side of the working class, but on the side of fighting for imperialist interests.
Im not advocating fighting for the british or germans for the sake of it. The jist of my argument was that World war 2 represented a historically unique set of circumstances because of the nature of the German state at the time.

Ive had enough of this debaccle anyway.

You and yawn inducing pseudo-intellectuals like you and bob are the reason the left in this country is so small; anyone who disagrees with your position on even the slightest detail is somehow a 'reactionary weasel'.

Go and fuck yourself.

[Dr Mindbender]

Do you find such stereotypes appropriate, especially when they are more often than not used in a sexist manner?

I am blonde.

[Sam_b]

I think it's safe to say without much margin of error what would have happened if Hitler's reign in Europe was allowed to continue.

Again, presupposition.


What makes you think he would have been content to stop at the beaches of Calais?

What makes you think that a coordinated resistance outwith the boundaires of imperialism and a civil conflict starting within the imperialist sides of both Britain and Germany could have equally stopped fascism?


ive already stated World War 2 was in my opinion a special case. The allies werent in France with imperialist motives, they were there to prevent the advance of the Germans and the despical regime which they represented.

Your use of 'special case' says it all. So from this we can reach a conclusion that you believe in some instances it is acceptable for socialists to support imperialism.


there were no guns littering the street that workers could just pick up. They were all owned by the forces, and the only way you could obtain one was to join up. Using all means available to prevent the nazi invasion does not equal fighting for the ruling class.

There were no guns littering streets any less than in any other country in Europe where resistance movements were able to form. Like it or not by fighting for the British Army you are fighting for the goals of its imperialist leadership. Its not too difficult to understand.


My point was, all of the resistance movements were infinitely weaker than the German army, and served to do little more than postpone the inevitable in the event that the allies didnt show up.


Your point is wrong. The Czech Resistance in the form of the Prague uprising in 1945, for example, caused the Nazis to withdraw. The Yugoslav partisans and Macedonian partisans played the majority and instrumental art in the defeats of the Nazis and Italians, as well as in later stages Allied troops in the National Liberation War of Macedonia. What about the opposition to the Axis Occupation of Greece? Do you want me to go on?

Why do you keep apologising for imperialism?

[STJ]

I think the idea of army troops switching sides to our side is crazy. We may get a handful to join our side. But the vast majority will never come over to our side.

[Jazzratt]

Of course its correct.
They are infinetly more progressive than Imperialism.
No they aren't. Simply opposing a reactionary thing does not make someone progressive that's just absurd excision of nuance.


More than the Brits and Yanks were fighting the fascists.
Isn't that thinking beyond jejune dichotomies?! :ohmy:


Just all I can see here is some chauvanistic apologism for imperialism.
Refusing to support nationalists simply because they are currently my enemy's enemy is "chauvanistic" now. Are you sure you know what the words you are using mean?


You have recognised that Imperialism is not progressive so thus defeating it is progressive.
There are many things in this world that are progressive, that doesn't immediatly mean that leftists should rally around them. Simply having a single progressive end is not enough and I'm sorry to tell you that every blow struck for your nation is a blow struck against your class.


So who ever defeats it must have our short term support in doing such a task.
If their politics are reactionary they should never expect support from the left. You wouldn't join with a KKK march against the Iraq war, would you?


Of course.
But we are supportive of the Taliban because of their policy on imperialism.
And in that context we are supportive of them.
Flagrant oppurtunism. Being supportive of nationalist fanatics cannot be reconciled with any internationalist organisation.


Of course that is all true.
But National Liberation is merely a platform to Socialism which eventually eradicates the whole cancer.
National "Liberation" is a con. It's swapping one ruling class for another.


Wrong its material analysis.
It's still a shallow joke.


Its why Marx, Engels, Connolly, Lenin and Costello all recognised the fenians as progressive.
In this they were shortsighted and reactionary. Celebrity endorsements do not exonerate your politics.


Because national Liberation is a stepping stone to Socialism
Others would say Social Democracy is a stepping stone to socialism; are we expected to cuddle up with the social democrats?


Im not taking an idealist stand, im taking an objective analytical stand.You are clouding a black and white situation with emotive drivel.

:lol: "emotive". That's the best you could do? Pointing out how anti-worker your vulgar nationalism is makes me emotive.


When did I say we should focus on attacking skinheads?
Your taking what I said and misrepresenting it.
If I did I was simply returning the favour for all your arguments that since I don't support imperialism I must support anyone wearing an anti-imperialist hat.


When they set foot in an occupied country.
So the fascist skinheads of europe never cross the line? You can be as reactionary as you like in your own country?


Absolutely, we have an obligation to do so.
I'm not obliged to kill any workers and I'm certainly not obliged to do so for the benefit of the bourgeoisie in any given nation. Killing can be necessary in a revolution but in intra-bourgios conflict? Fuck off.


Pointless emotive arguement.
It was a reductio ad absurdium. I doubt you actually support shooting everyone and invading polandbut you are still supportive of killing for the rulers of a nation.


How about you take a breather and calm yourself before you make me cry too.

If I'm crying it's with laughter at your absurd politics.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm watching a film atm, but I just had a quick browse at this thread and I spotted this.

There were no guns littering streets any less than in any other country in Europe where resistance movements were able to form. Like it or not by fighting for the British Army you are fighting for the goals of its imperialist leadership. Its not too difficult to understand.

The resistance factions on the continent were trained and supplied by the British and United States goverments. Dont get me wrong, if it hadnt benefitted the bourgeois in these countries they wouldnt have lifted a finger though. Guess it's a case of the lesser of two evils. Centralist Imperialism, or Facist Imperialism.

[LeninBalls]

Can I pop in quickly ask what is this debate even about?

[Sam_b]

The resistance factions on the continent were trained and supplied by the British and United States goverments. Dont get me wrong, if it hadnt benefitted the bourgeois in these countries they wouldnt have lifted a finger though. Guess it's a case of the lesser of two evils. Centralist Imperialism, or Facist Imperialism.

Some were. You can't generalise the entire network of resistance movements that sprung up. 'Lesser of two evils' politics is poor politics all-round. Socialists should not be supporters of imperialism.


Can I pop in quickly ask what is this debate even about?

What's stopping you from reading it?

[LeninBalls]

What's stopping you from reading it?

I'm reading, but I'm not really following.

[Andropov]

No they aren't. Simply opposing a reactionary thing does not make someone progressive that's just absurd excision of nuance.
The goal they are fighting in opposing imperialism is progressive.
For that they should be supported, plain and simple.

Isn't that thinking beyond jejune dichotomies?! :ohmy:
Funny.

Refusing to support nationalists simply because they are currently my enemy's enemy is "chauvanistic" now. Are you sure you know what the words you are using mean?
Funny guy.
No your failure to recognise the fact that Taliban rule is infinetly more progressive than Brit or Yankee rule is what makes you chauvanistic.

There are many things in this world that are progressive, that doesn't immediatly mean that leftists should rally around them. Simply having a single progressive end is not enough and I'm sorry to tell you that every blow struck for your nation is a blow struck against your class.
Hahahaha this is priceless.
What a chauvanist.
So we are just as badly off under our own domestic Bourgeois than under Brit Rule?
Hilarious verging on insulting.

If their politics are reactionary they should never expect support from the left. You wouldn't join with a KKK march against the Iraq war, would you?
Totally different context.
The KKK are not combating imperialism in Afghanistan.
So yet again your strawman fails.

Flagrant oppurtunism. Being supportive of nationalist fanatics cannot be reconciled with any internationalist organisation.

'' To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie WITHOUT ALL ITS PREJUDICES, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.--to imagine all this is to REPUDIATE SOCIAL REVOLUTION. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a "putsch"."

National "Liberation" is a con. It's swapping one ruling class for another.
No its removing one reactionary force in order to pave the way for socialism.

It's still a shallow joke.
Absurd.

In this they were shortsighted and reactionary. Celebrity endorsements do not exonerate your politics.
Pathetic really.
Such great Marxist minds have recognised the merits of National Liberation as being progressive but still its "a joke" to you.
You are hard to take serious.

Others would say Social Democracy is a stepping stone to socialism; are we expected to cuddle up with the social democrats?
I dont care what others say.
I was giving you the opinions of respected and esteemed Marxists, not some drivel of "some might say".

:lol: "emotive". That's the best you could do? Pointing out how anti-worker your vulgar nationalism is makes me emotive.
Anti worker?
That is absurd.
National Liberation and Nationalism are two very different things, some of the trendy left here fail to recognise.

If I did I was simply returning the favour for all your arguments that since I don't support imperialism I must support anyone wearing an anti-imperialist hat.
No you misrepresented me.
Plain and simple.

So the fascist skinheads of europe never cross the line? You can be as reactionary as you like in your own country?
I was giving you an example of Brit soldiers.
I never gave an example of skinheads crossing a line.
So yet again your shallow attempt to misrepresent me is another spectacular failure.

I'm not obliged to kill any workers and I'm certainly not obliged to do so for the benefit of the bourgeoisie in any given nation. Killing can be necessary in a revolution but in intra-bourgios conflict? Fuck off.
But you would kill German soldiers in WW2 right?
In that intra-bourgeois conflict.

It was a reductio ad absurdium. I doubt you actually support shooting everyone and invading polandbut you are still supportive of killing for the rulers of a nation.
Another aburd attempt to misrepresent my views.
I know your arguemnt is really lacking any substance but please dont misrepresent me.
I am supportive of killing foreign occupiers in support of the workers because it is infinetly more progressive for the workers to be free from imperialism than to be under it. National Liberation is a pre-requisit for any socialist revolution.

If I'm crying it's with laughter at your absurd politics.
You politics are drivel tbh.
They are so far detached from reality its worrying.
To expect that some workers militia will spring up in Afghanistan to combat the invaders is surreal.
We must exist in reality as we know it and in reality as we know it the only viable resistance to Brit Impeialism in Afghanistan is the Taliban.
So until the National Liberation of Afghanistan is secured we must give support to the Taliban.
And to merely wash our hands of them because they are reactionary zealots until a peoples militia is formed and defeats the Brits is just apologism for decades more of occupation that is not needed.
This is a chauvanist outlook because in the end of the day the trendys would rather see Afghanistan occupied for a few more decades and the Afghani working class suffer as a result than see a few "working class" westerners come home in body bags even though they are actively serving in an occupation.

[khad]

You politics are drivel tbh.
They are so far detached from reality its worrying.
To expect that some workers militia will spring up in Afghanistan to combat the invaders is surreal.
Spoken as truth. I've already received negative rep for saying the exact same thing, though unlike some delusional fools I am not to play their game of flamebaiting. Supporters of mercenary imperialist forces have no right calling anyone a supporter of imperialism.

[PRC-UTE]

so what if the imperialist occupiers wrecked the economy to the point that drugs are the most viable industry, bombed your village, shot your family members at a checkpoint and refuse to leave you in peace... shooting back is bourgeois. :crying:

[Bitter Ashes]

The main thing that the resistance movements achieved was to stall the invasion of Britain long enough for the D-Day landings and for the USSR to awaken properly. Maybe if those two things hadn't happened we might have seen a totaly different scenario. Maybe the resistance would have developed more and become an empowered workers movement rising up against the Nazis and also holding thier own against the bourgeois and depending on thier tendancy, maybe remained independant from Stalin too. I guess we'll never know for sure, but I must admit that it seems like a long shot seeing as though these resistance members didnt continue to rise up against the reinstated bourgeois after the Nazis had been cleared out. I dont know. It's the "what if" game isnt it?

[NecroCommie]

I dont care if they are working class, for they have betrayed their class by joining the army. If a foreign soldier comes killing my comrades, I dont give a shit if they are working class or not. The coalition is the agressor in the middle east, and I too would raise arms against anyone who comes to my country killing stuff. Thusly, the resistance has a justification for their existence in the middle east, but the coalition has not.

Here are the facts.
-Coalition is the imperialist agressor
-Joining coalition army is supporting coalition army, regardless the reasons that led to the recruitment.
Thus, joining coalition army is supporting imperialist agression regardless the reasons that led to the recruitment.

Death to all coalition troops in the middle east!

[Dr Mindbender]

I dont care if they are working class, for they have betrayed their class by joining the army. If a foreign soldier comes killing my comrades, I dont give a shit if they are working class or not.

but are they still your comrades, even if the army they are in is fighting for a fascist cause?

Obviously i'm still referring to the WW2 example.

[NecroCommie]

but are they still your comrades, even if the army they are in is fighting for a fascist cause?

Obviously i'm still referring to the WW2 example.
Well, I'm not... :o (I guess I missed a bit, since this was supposed to be an answer to a post several pages back.)
Both cases tend to be choices of lesser evil though, since in both cases there is a lack of true socialist faction.

[Sam_b]

If he had his way, The third reich would still be with us and its empire would stretch from Derry City to vladivostok.


Your childish insults make up for an argument which is unsocialist. Again you are merely supporting one faction of the bourgeoisie over another because it is more preferable to yourself. Of course the Nazis were the agressors dipshit, but does that mean that the British Governments policy of appeasement which could have stopped the war before it was started if they wanted to any better? If our respective territories got attacked by an imperialist power tomorrow would we round up workers and send them to join the British Army to fight them? So why is your entire argument in this debate based on the ridiculous and absurd assumption that fighting for imperialism in WW2 was somehow a 'special case'?

Liberal, liberal, bollocks.

I don't think i'll post anymore in this thread if you keep making absurd assumptions and attacks which are out of order. If you truly think that I support what you say I do then i'm sure I can be banned from the forum, so I expect a thread about me in the CC forthwith. Will you do it? Will you fuck.

[Dr Mindbender]

Your childish insults make up for an argument which is unsocialist. Again you are merely supporting one faction of the bourgeoisie over another because it is more preferable to yourself. Of course the Nazis were the agressors dipshit, but does that mean that the British Governments policy of appeasement which could have stopped the war before it was started if they wanted to any better?
No, i dont support appeasement either, i think economic and political action in the form of sanctions should have been taken against Germany before they had a chance to invade poland


If our respective territories got attacked by an imperialist power tomorrow would we round up workers and send them to join the British Army to fight them? So why is your entire argument in this debate based on the ridiculous and absurd assumption that fighting for imperialism in WW2 was somehow a 'special case'?
2 points- Europe had just come out of a devastating economic spell, the depression. This meant all resources, weapons etc were all controlled sadly, by the state. The only way you could become part of the defence apparatus at that time was to join the army. I dont think sitting around with acoustic guitars playing 'kum bay yah' would have been that effective against the weirmarcht. Arguably, the same holds true for today because of the UK's shitty firearms laws but only for that reason. I think the only country where a large scale workers army could effectively be organised would be the USA, completely because of it's liberal gun laws.

Secondly- As ive already pointed out n times, Germany of the day wasnt just imperialist- It was also fascist- the worst of both worlds.

[Sam_b]

Europe had just come out of a devastating economic spell, the depression. This meant all resources, weapons etc were all controlled sadly, by the state. The only way you could become part of the defence apparatus at that time was to join the army. I dont think sitting around with acoustic guitars playing 'kum bay yah' would have been that effective against the weirmarcht. Arguably, the same holds true for today because of the UK's shitty firearms laws but only for that reason. I think the only country where a large scale workers army could effectively be organised would be the USA, completely because of it's liberal gun laws.

This may well be the case but you have failed to explain therefore exactly how other resistance groups all over Europe were able to spring up and have access to firearms, even in places where you say are the 'worst of both worlds': with fascism and imperialism in place.


Secondly- As ive already pointed out n times, Germany of the day wasnt just imperialist- It was also fascist- the worst of both worlds.

This doesn't excuse the fact that you're supporting imperialism in the form of the British Army, annd as such condoning its atrocities committed in the Second World war: from the famines in Bengal to the bombing of Dresden. Just because you regard British iimperialism as beng 'nicer' than German imperialism.

[Dr Mindbender]

This may well be the case but you have failed to explain therefore exactly how other resistance groups all over Europe were able to spring up and have access to firearms, even in places where you say are the 'worst of both worlds': with fascism and imperialism in place.
Yes, really successful, werent they.




This doesn't excuse the fact that you're supporting imperialism in the form of the British Army, annd as such condoning its atrocities committed in the Second World war: from the famines in Bengal to the bombing of Dresden. Just because you regard British iimperialism as beng 'nicer' than German imperialism.
But as i've already said i dont beleive that the allies were there with imperialist motives. They were there because otherwise they would have 'been next' in the nazi shopping list.

Secondly, youre completely ignoring the fact that we did have comrades of the day working for the british goverment, on the basis that it was against fascists. Are you saying they were traitors?

[Sam_b]

Yes, really successful, werent they.

If I remember correctly I gave you three good examples in this thread (I believe on the previous page) that you haven't even bothered to address.


But as i've already said i dont beleive that the allies were there with imperialist motives

Are you seriously suggesting what happened after the war with the carving-up of Germany, the bombing of Dresden, or what was happening at the time in India had nothing to do with imperialism?

Are you now saying its okay to ally with the ruling class when they don't seem overtly imperialist to you?


Secondly, youre completely ignoring the fact that we did have comrades of the day working for the british goverment, on the basis that it was against fascists. Are you saying they were traitors?

The majority of those making the decisions in the National Government at the time were of the right-wing. Most of the principled socialists didn't have much to do with the National Government. But anyway, this is a bit of a false dichotomy: the Atlee Government of 45-51 had genuine socialists in it, but still supported military intervention in the Korean War. Does that mean we would refuse to call the Labour Party imperialist?

[El Rojo]

this is putting my head in the fire, but what the hell,

It is a tradgedy that another squaddie was killed, a loss of life has to be recognized as a tradgedy no matter what role they play in the world. I think that if we dismiss soliders as faceless state goons, then we are letting potential brothers in the struggle slip though our hands. The Russian revolution would never have occured if the Russian conscripts hadn't been targeted by Bolshevik propaganda.

Furthermore, I do not think that the war in afghanistan is entirely a bad thing. From our point of view, a secular or even Islamic democracy is better than a Islamic theocracy. The war in afghanistan is a) putting cracks in the West's armed forces b) burdening the capitalist economy and c) doing our work for us. surely it is far easier to spread socialism in a democracy than theocracy?

now, rip above argument to shreds

[Andropov]

It is a tradgedy that another squaddie was killed, a loss of life has to be recognized as a tradgedy no matter what role they play in the world. I think that if we dismiss soliders as faceless state goons, then we are letting potential brothers in the struggle slip though our hands. The Russian revolution would never have occured if the Russian conscripts hadn't been targeted by Bolshevik propaganda.
Absolutely, but until they are won over they are the enemy.
That point should not be fudged.

Furthermore, I do not think that the war in afghanistan is entirely a bad thing.
Ohh god :(.
Do Afghani's come into this analysis at all?

From our point of view, a secular or even Islamic democracy is better than a Islamic theocracy.
It will not be a Democracy, it will be some puppet government of the West's.

The war in afghanistan is a) putting cracks in the West's armed forces
Its slaughtering thousands of working class lads from the west and from Afghanistan.

b) burdening the capitalist economy and
But at the innocent human expense?
This is unforgiveable.

c) doing our work for us. surely it is far easier to spread socialism in a democracy than theocracy?
Exporting foreign imperialism is not "doing our work for us".
Thats absurd.
And as pointed out before it is not going to blossom into a Democracy just because a yank or brit squaddie is pointing the barrel of your gun into your face.

[Devrim]

'Red Revolutionary' is absolutely right. The imperialists role in Afghanistan has nothing positive to offer.

Devrim

[Jazzratt]

Furthermore, I do not think that the war in afghanistan is entirely a bad thing. From our point of view, a secular or even Islamic democracy is better than a Islamic theocracy.
A "democratic" vassal of the imperialist powers, however, is absolutely no good to anyone.



The war in afghanistan is a) putting cracks in the West's armed forces
Don't you traditionally put a crack in armed forces but killing its members? I thought you were all for not celebrating the deaths of working class soldiers.


b) burdening the capitalist economy
True. But as much as it pains me I think that Red Revolutionary is right about the cost being too steep.


c) doing our work for us. surely it is far easier to spread socialism in a democracy than theocracy?
All that spreads under the yoke of imperialist occupiers is nationalism. Revolution won't be any "easier" and it certainly isn't the case that our job is being done for us by bourgeois imperialists; Devrim and RR have that covered.


now, rip above argument to shreds
Done.

[Comrade_]

I know I risk being lynched here, but I feel that these deaths are positive.
IN THE LONG RUN.
Simply because they act as lessons; unfortuantely government officials do not learn from these.
We must not get involved in such economic-imperialistic wars again. It is disgusting.

[NecroCommie]

We must not get involved in such economic-imperialistic wars again. It is disgusting.

You are wrong. We must get involved, and act against all imperialism. Whether your action is to volunteer or spread the anti-imperialist message, it is all the same.

These wars are not against some petty 3rd world countries! They are attacks against your class! Go to a demo or write an article I dont care, but contribute to the class war so that the bourgeoisie will be smitten.

[Bitter Ashes]

Smitten? :wub:
But yeah, you cant blame people for making the best of a bad situation. There's nothing to say that you cant work within the military to bring them to your side from within too.

[NecroCommie]

That approach is understandable, but only if one refuses to actually fire upon comrades.

[Bitter Ashes]

Well, i can quite honestly say that I've never witnessed anyone firing upon anyone who wasnt bieng directed by the Iraqi army's chain of command, or some cleric to further those agendas, not socialism. There is no empowered working class in Iraq. It doesnt make it right, but it doesnt make the actions of those who are joining these sectarian mobs any more excusable.

[NecroCommie]

Well, i can quite honestly say that I've never witnessed anyone firing upon anyone who wasnt bieng directed by the Iraqi army's chain of command, or some cleric to further those agendas, not socialism. There is no empowered working class in Iraq. It doesnt make it right, but it doesnt make the actions of those who are joining these sectarian mobs any more excusable.
I dont exactly cheer for the insurgents as a whole (for some of them yes). I cheer against imperialism, and for the deaths of those who would advance it.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm tempted to agree tbh. Doesnt make them any better or worse than those they fight though. It's just a case that one of the manipulated groups is more effecient than the other.

[MilitantAnarchist]

To be honest.... without sounding like a sick bastard, i dont really feel anything much.... it is sad a life is lost, but what about all the innocent Afghanis that died? You never hear about them.
And you dont join the army to sit on your arse, and after all these wars and all this death, has no one realised that they could just say no?
Send the fucking polticians to war.
Also, im sick of hearing all that SUPPORT OUR HEROES and all that shit, because they arent heroes atall. They're war mongering bastards.

[Bitter Ashes]

Send the fucking polticians to war.
I'd soooooo be in support of that

[Jazzratt]

I know I risk being lynched here, but I feel that these deaths are positive.

That's a position a lot of people are taking in this thread. A lot of people feel "empowered" when they celebrate the deaths of workers miles away. They're like a complete mirror image of the people they rail against, adopting the same "with us/against us" rhetoric of the thugs they rail so vehemently against.

[AvanteRedGarde]

You keep saying that troops are workers, but I have to ask, what exactly is their role in production and capital accumulation?

[Wanted Man]

It's a ridiculous way to paint the situation, in any case. As if it's just a matter of "celebrating the death" of individual soldiers. One would hope that most people, especially on the left, are above such knee-jerk reflexes.

However, if you say that I want "my" country to be defeated in Afghanistan, I'm guilty on all charges. I do oppose Dutch imperialism at work in Afghanistan, and I want it defeated ASAP. It has nothing to do with "celebrating the death of workers", on the contrary, the working class here will benefit on the long term if the Dutch are kicked out of Afghanistan. Same with Britain, Germany, Belgium and all the other imperialist nations.

I thought "we" went over this in 1914-1917? Yet apparently, we have new "social patriots" in 2009. The hysteric cries against anti-imperialists are just like in the old times: "They're celebrating the deaths of our young working class lads!!!" ("Our", because they're British? Damn.)

[Cumannach]

That's a position a lot of people are taking in this thread. A lot of people feel "empowered" when they celebrate the deaths of workers miles away. They're like a complete mirror image of the people they rail against, adopting the same "with us/against us" rhetoric of the thugs they rail so vehemently against.

If I could have it all my way, I wish these people had never signed up to the Army and stayed at home. Unfortunately, they did sign up to that criminal gang and took part in their crimes. The best, in the sense of the least worst, outcome in a situation like this is that the soldiers are taken out, rather than their victims.

[khad]

I thought "we" went over this in 1914-1917? Yet apparently, we have new "social patriots" in 2009. The hysteric cries against anti-imperialists are just like in the old times: "They're celebrating the deaths of our young working class lads!!!" ("Our", because they're British? Damn.)
I wonder what moral stick up their ass gives them the self-righteous entitlement to label anti-imperialists "apologists for imperialism."

[Bitter Ashes]

You keep saying that troops are workers, but I have to ask, what exactly is their role in production and capital accumulation?
They dont hold thier own means of production either, so they're definatly not bourgeois. Let me add too, what do doctors produce, or teachers, the fire brigade, or even the media? The definition of working class depends on whether they have to sell thier labour, not on whether there's something tangible actualy produced.

[NecroCommie]

Soldiers do contribute to society, but only as instruments of class war. They come as bourgeoisie soldiers, and red soldiers. Their side is decided by the army they fight for, and coalition certainly fights for bourgeoisie.

[Andropov]

Doesnt make them any better or worse than those they fight though.
Thats outrageous, of course the Brits and Yanks are worse.
They are the aggressors, the invaders, the occupiers, all the rest are a reaction to that very fact.

[Andropov]

That's a position a lot of people are taking in this thread. A lot of people feel "empowered" when they celebrate the deaths of workers miles away. They're like a complete mirror image of the people they rail against, adopting the same "with us/against us" rhetoric of the thugs they rail so vehemently against.
Every workers death is a tragedy when taken in isolation.
But every death does not occur in isolation, they occur in a context.
And in this context those "workers" are occupying a country for imperialism.
In this process in which they are willing volunteers they are the enemy, plain and simple and in this context every one of them that dies is progressive for our struggle and for our class, as the Afghani working class is bearing the brunt of this occupation.

[NecroCommie]

Awesome post!

That applies in general philosophy also, since alot of pacifists and "killing is bad"-people are having a hard time to understand that there is no such thing as: "just killing". Killing always has a context, a reason and an effect.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Every workers death is a tragedy when taken in isolation.
But every death does not occur in isolation, they occur in a context.
And in this context those "workers" are occupying a country for imperialism.
In this process in which they are willing volunteers they are the enemy, plain and simple and in this context every one of them that dies is progressive for our struggle and for our class, as the Afghani working class is bearing the brunt of this occupation.


How is it progressive to have the international class of workers being forced to fight each other? Of course this is a result of an imperialist war but I will not celebrate the death of any of my class brothers and sisters. The working class soldiers of the British army are hardly the imperialist pigs behind this war, they join the army not to advance imperialism but as result of little choice.

[Nakidana]

Marx was totally bourgeois to support the *dirty**savage* *Indians'* attempt to shoot at the poor, oppressed working class of the British Army.

Yeah, good thing we have the poor oppressed working class comrades of the British Army to deal with yet another reactionary savage sectarian mob in Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTc7s4sBrBs&feature=related

Bad Iraqis! How dare these savages resist our working class brothers with violent means? Our comrades in the British Army are simply trying to make a living and these teenage Iraqis in sectarian mobs throw STONES at them? DISGRACEFUL I SAY!

/sarcasm :glare:

[Bitter Ashes]

Nice quote from the guy who never got to see the Russian military side with the Bolsheviks and bring down the Tsar. I mean, Marx was a clever guy, but even he underestimated what the enlisted soldiers are capable of, which just goes to show how easy a trap it is to assume that soldiers will follow the orders of the reactionary officers forever.

[khad]

Nice quote from the guy who never got to see the Russian military side with the Bolsheviks and bring down the Tsar. I mean, Marx was a clever guy, but even he underestimated what the enlisted soldiers are capable of, which just goes to show how easy a trap it is to assume that soldiers will follow the orders of the reactionary officers forever.
Again, ignorance of history.

The old British Army was a volunteer army filled with lifers (10-20 years of service) and mercenaries; the Russian Army that rebelled was a conscript army and therefore representative of the working class. Get the difference?

[Bitter Ashes]

Yeah, good thing we have the poor oppressed working class comrades of the British Army to deal with yet another reactionary savage sectarian mob in Iraq:

Bad Iraqis! How dare these savages resist our working class brothers with violent means? Our comrades in the British Army are simply trying to make a living and these teenage Iraqis in sectarian mobs throw STONES at them? DISGRACEFUL I SAY!

/sarcasm :glare:
Ah yes, the video with the DIY grenade and a showering of rocks at the begining. Little wonder they snapped, but they did go too far, which is why the first soldier who wasnt involved who saw the video blew the whistle.

[Bitter Ashes]

The old British Army was a volunteer army filled with lifers (10-20 years of service) and mercenaries; the Russian Army that rebelled was a conscript army and therefore representative of the working class. Get the difference?
That's intresting. I wasnt aware of that.
As pointed out earlier in the thread though, a substantial part of the modern British army (30%!) were basicly drafted.

[khad]

That's intresting. I wasnt aware of that.
As pointed out earlier in the thread though, a substantial part of the modern British army (30%!) were basicly drafted.

There was actually a lot of coerced recruiting during the Napoleonic period, when Britain needed a massive army very very quickly, but conscription was never official for the regular army.

The limited service act of 1847 reduced enlistment terms from 21 to 10 years. Still, service time was long enough to cultivate the military as a class apart.

As for the Indian mercenaries rebelling, Marx made no claim of them being representative or even allied with the Indian working class--only their national character prevented them from fully siding with their British commanders. He saw them as a useful force against imperialism, nevertheless.


The Indian revolt does not commence with the Ryots, tortured, dishonored and stripped naked by the British, but with the Sepoys, clad, fed, petted, fatted and pampered by them.

[NecroCommie]

Little wonder they snapped,
What I am wondering is what possible reason could the Iraqi have to stone them... gee thats a tough one.

...

No! Wait! I think it might be the same attitude and actions that got me to go against coalition troops! Yep, that must be it.


but they did go too far,
The exact point in which they went too far was when they entered the ship going into iraq.


which is why the first soldier who wasnt involved who saw the video blew the whistle.
Other soldiers blowing whistles wont do any good to those Iraqis on the video.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Bad Iraqis! How dare these savages resist our working class brothers with violent means? Our comrades in the British Army are simply trying to make a living and these teenage Iraqis in sectarian mobs throw STONES at them? DISGRACEFUL I SAY!

/sarcasm :glare:

The Internationalist Communist Group which has comrades in Iraq has written that a lot of the so called sectarian mobs (where did that phrase come from?) are actually independent proletarian militas. Less poetry sprouting but similar formations to the EZLN. I cant find anything though in english on this question for the moment.

Still its not something we should be joking about. Armies kill people, that is what they there to do and anyone involved indirectly even in killing for imperialism is well....That people would even compare Iraqies and Afghanies resisting imperialism to such psychopaths is insane.

[Andropov]

How is it progressive to have the international class of workers being forced to fight each other? Of course this is a result of an imperialist war but I will not celebrate the death of any of my class brothers and sisters. The working class soldiers of the British army are hardly the imperialist pigs behind this war, they join the army not to advance imperialism but as result of little choice.
In the context of the situation their deaths are progressive as they are willing imperialist foot soldiers and every one that dies is one less trained killer to occupy a foreign country.
Its a black and white analytical analysis.

[Andropov]

Ah yes, the video with the DIY grenade and a showering of rocks at the begining. Little wonder they snapped, but they did go too far, which is why the first soldier who wasnt involved who saw the video blew the whistle.
This is the most disgusting apologism for Brit soldiers I have ever seen on this board.
"Little wonder they snapped", mother of god.
This time your sympathy for the Brit sodliers has gone too far, this is too much.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yeah, good thing we have the poor oppressed working class comrades of the British Army to deal with yet another reactionary savage sectarian mob in Iraq:

WTc7s4sBrBs

Bad Iraqis! How dare these savages resist our working class brothers with violent means? Our comrades in the British Army are simply trying to make a living and these teenage Iraqis in sectarian mobs throw STONES at them? DISGRACEFUL I SAY!

/sarcasm :glare:

Who is that fucking worthless **** who is speaking over that video. He deserves death by firing squad, and believe me I never say that lightly.

[Andropov]

Who is that fucking worthless **** who is speaking over that video. He deserves death by firing squad, and believe me I never say that lightly.
And the soldiers who also bet those Iraqi kids?

[Hoggy_RS]

Ah yes, the video with the DIY grenade and a showering of rocks at the begining. Little wonder they snapped, but they did go too far, which is why the first soldier who wasnt involved who saw the video blew the whistle.
At what point did they go too far? would a bit of a beating been alright?

A sickening comment to see from a supposed leftist

[Stranger Than Paradise]

And the soldiers who also bet those Iraqi kids?

Well I suppose them aswell. I still think each individual soldier should be viewed as such and we need to understand why some people join the army and that not everyone wants to fight people and further imperialism.

[Andropov]

Well I suppose them aswell. I still think each individual soldier should be viewed as such and we need to understand why some people join the army and that not everyone wants to fight people and further imperialism.
But the lad holding the camera deserves death by firing squad right?

[Pogue]

What I want too know echoes what Bakunin-Kropotkin said - is the guy speaking over this disgusting video another soldier filming it or is it a voice over from some **** from youtube?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

But the lad holding the camera deserves death by firing squad right?

I said they all do in my opinion. Showing no sign of compassion whatsoever, beating little Iraqi kids.

[Bitter Ashes]

Who is that fucking worthless **** who is speaking over that video. He deserves death by firing squad, and believe me I never say that lightly.
That's thier NCO giving them orders. And yeah, I agree.

[Pogue]

Also this video is clearly disgusting. I'm under no illusions as to the British Army. I think, come a popular revolution, there will be some who will desert and come to our side, and disobey orders. This will naturally happen at some point I think. This doesn't mean I'm going to act as though everyone in the British Army is innocent of any crimes and is *simply* a desperate worker. The fact is, you don't have to join the British Army. You'll never be in a situation where you have no choice between joining or not. You join knowing what it is you are going into. Thats why I'm not going to pull any punches when it comes to the army - yes, some might come to our side, not all of them are neccesarily pro-imperialist reactionary twats, but they are clearly allied on the side of the bourgeoisie and the state, and until they actively rebel, desert or quit and come to our side, we have to look at them as our enemies, just like the police, for crimes like this and their general role. I think comrades from both sides need to get realistic - not all of them will be absolute scum who will never come to our side, but then also they are not poor desperate working class lads who had no choice whatsoever and should be pitied. I can fully understand and support the actions of the Iraqi kids in the video throwing the stones - just look at the torture videos and casualties from Iraq and you'd understand. And I can recognise the people who beat those kids, the people who cheer it on and anyone who doesn't prevent it - they are our class enemies and should be treated as such.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

That's thier NCO giving them orders. And yeah, I agree.

What does NCO stand for? So they can hear that?

[Bitter Ashes]

At what point did they go too far? would a bit of a beating been alright?

A sickening comment to see from a supposed leftist
Oh please. Keep your assumptions to yourself.

The policy in our unit was to throw the stones back at them, but dont give chase unless they're armed in which case they're to be disarmed and arrested.

[Andropov]

Oh please. Keep your assumptions to yourself.

The policy in our unit was to throw the stones back at them, but dont give chase unless they're armed in which case they're to be disarmed and arrested.
So you did serve in Iraq?
How quaint.

[Bitter Ashes]

What does NCO stand for? So they can hear that?
Non-commissioned officer. In the US army they're promoted to these positions against thier wills, in the British army they're volunteers or "volunteers". They're the ones that the commissioned officers use to do thier dirty work for them. If a CO wants to unofficialy disipline a private then they'll whisper in the ear of a NCO to administer the beatings.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Non-commissioned officer. In the US army they're promoted to these positions against thier wills, in the British army they're volunteers or "volunteers". They're the ones that the commissioned officers use to do thier dirty work for them. If a CO wants to unofficialy disipline a private then they'll whisper in the ear of a NCO to administer the beatings.

Ok thanks. The military scares me.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

So you did serve in Iraq?
How quaint.

What do you mean? What if Ranma did serve in Iraq?

[Bitter Ashes]

So you did serve in Iraq?
How quaint.
"Serverd" isnt the word I'd use. More like herded, or co-ercered.

[Andropov]

What do you mean? What if Ranma did serve in Iraq?
She is clearly morally reprehensible.
You dont have to serve in the occupation and brutalisation of the Iraqi people.

[Andropov]

"Serverd" isnt the word I'd use. More like herded, or co-ercered.
Hahaha.
Could you not choose to not serve in Iraq?
It was a choice.
But I guess you would rather earn your money than be court martialled.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

She is clearly morally reprehensible.
You dont have to serve in the occupation and brutalisation of the Iraqi people.

People can change their views. So your telling me you would not want the working class members of the army to turn away from the army and become leftists?

[Andropov]

People can change their views.
Maybe so.
But her blatant apologism of Brit sodliers torturing Iraqi kids begs to differ.

Ah yes, the video with the DIY grenade and a showering of rocks at the begining. Little wonder they snapped, but they did go too far, which is why the first soldier who wasnt involved who saw the video blew the whistle.

So your telling me you would not want the working class members of the army to turn away from the army and become leftists?
Those who "change their morals" and still apologise for the torturing of Iraqis yes I would turn away.

[Devrim]

Ah yes, the video with the DIY grenade and a showering of rocks at the begining. Little wonder they snapped, but they did go too far, which is why the first soldier who wasnt involved who saw the video blew the whistle.

Does this imply that there is an acceptable level that people can be beaten to. If so could you define what it is?

Devrim

[Bitter Ashes]

Hahaha.
Could you not choose to not serve in Iraq?
It was a choice.
But I guess you would rather earn your money than be court martialled.
Basicly, yes. As tempting as turning my back on my friends as they were put into danger, bieng thrown into jail with the RMP, getting a criminal record and all the stuff that goes along with that, I decieded to do what I was told. Anyone who denies that they wouldnt have acted the same way is a liar.

[khad]

Basicly, yes. As tempting as turning my back on my friends as they were put into danger, bieng thrown into jail with the RMP, getting a criminal record and all the stuff that goes along with that, I decieded to do what I was told. Anyone who denies that they wouldnt have acted the same way is a liar.
There are various ways one can extricate oneself from the military without financial or legal obligation. Sadly, one needs to have a knack for navigating bureaucracy, a skill that not everyone has.

Nevertheless, I know of people who have successfully gotten themselves discharged.

[Bitter Ashes]

Does this imply that there is an acceptable level that people can be beaten to. If so could you define what it is?

Devrim
I already did, Devrim.

[Devrim]

I already did, Devrim.

I can't find it unless you are referring to this comment:


The policy in our unit was to throw the stones back at them, but dont give chase unless they're armed in which case they're to be disarmed and arrested.

It doesn't really give your opinion on it though.

Devrim

[Bitter Ashes]

I can't find it unless you are referring to this comment:



It doesn't really give your opinion on it though.

Devrim
That was what I was reffering to, but yeah, I can see what you're saying now. It seemed pretty reasonable to me. I dont think we should have been there in the first place, but we were and we couldnt change that, so it was just how we responded to the situation. Sit there and let others try to kill us, or respond as moderatly as we could. I're not talking about an empowered working class attacking us either. I'm talking about about people who were manipulated just as we were. Our manipulating commanders were the British Goverment and its officers. Thiers were the ex-Republican guard and the clerics.

[Pogue]

That was what I was reffering to, but yeah, I can see what you're saying now. It seemed pretty reasonable to me. I dont think we should have been there in the first place, but we were and we couldnt change that, so it was just how we responded to the situation. Sit there and let others try to kill us, or respond as moderatly as we could. I're not talking about an empowered working class attacking us either. I'm talking about about people who were manipulated just as we were. Our manipulating commanders were the British Goverment and its officers. Thiers were the ex-Republican guard and the clerics.

You went to their community with guns and killed a whole load of them. Who wouldn't get pissed off with you for that? Who wouldn't fight back in this case? You lot should have done the honourable thing and fucked off, deserted or shot your officers.

[khad]

I'm talking about about people who were manipulated just as we were. Our manipulating commanders were the British Goverment and its officers. Thiers were the ex-Republican guard and the clerics.
You need to drop this equivalency garbage.

The British hating the Irish is not the same as the Irish hating the British.
A white person being prejudiced against black people is not the same as as a black person being prejudiced against white people.
An American screaming "Kill all the Muslims" is not the same as an Arab saying "Death to America."

It's about social and historical power, the groups that have it and the groups that do not. Until you come to grips with this, your assertions of equivalency come off as callous and arrogant.

[FreeFocus]

You lot should have done the honourable thing and fucked off, deserted or shot your officers.

Or himself - it seems to be a developing trend, at least among American troops.

[Nakidana]

Basicly, yes. As tempting as turning my back on my friends as they were put into danger, bieng thrown into jail with the RMP, getting a criminal record and all the stuff that goes along with that, I decieded to do what I was told. Anyone who denies that they wouldnt have acted the same way is a liar.

So you were forced to go to Iraq? If you'd said no they would've thrown you in jail?

[Bitter Ashes]

So you were forced to go to Iraq? If you'd said no they would've thrown you in jail?
I would have been jailed, yes.
Iin my opinion, I consider that to be forced. Some others here seem to consider it that I was offered a choice. I disagree with them, but I dont think it's going to get us anywhere further debating that.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Bullshit. Joining the military is a free choice (insofar as choices are free).

Boo-hoo, you didn't realize that joining the military might actual entail military duties. It just confirms that people who join the military are dumb as a stone. Only stones don't kill people to protect their friend (who are also in the military jackass) or because someone told them too.

And don't tell me you didn't kill anyone. Even if you are not in a combat role, you are part of a unit which kills peoples.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Bullshit. Joining the military is a free choice (insofar as choices are free).

Where have we heard that argument before?


And don't tell me you didn't kill anyone. Even if you are not in a combat role, you are part of a unit which kills peoples.We're part of a system that kills people. Perhaps we should just all drop out, kill our bosses, or commit suicide.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Bullshit. Joining the military is a free choice (insofar as choices are free).

Boo-hoo, you didn't realize that joining the military might actual entail military duties. It just confirms that people who join the military are dumb as a stone. Only stones don't kill people to protect their friend (who are also in the military jackass) or because someone told them too.

And don't tell me you didn't kill anyone. Even if you are not in a combat role, you are part of a unit which kills peoples.

I don't think you have any knowledge of what situation Ranma was in. So it is very ignorant of you to assume she had any choice.

[Cumannach]

It's really pretty bad that this unapologetic imperialist hasn't been restricted or banned.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

It's really pretty bad that this unapologetic imperialist hasn't been restricted or banned.

Which one?

[Pogue]

I would have been jailed, yes.
Iin my opinion, I consider that to be forced. Some others here seem to consider it that I was offered a choice. I disagree with them, but I dont think it's going to get us anywhere further debating that.

Well, you joined the army in the first place. You knew what you'd be getting into and you did it anyway. I'd rather die than go there and do this sort of stuff.

[NecroCommie]

These US Maoist third-worldists always see things from their own point of view, don't they?

In fact, in many parts of the world joining the military is not a 'free choice'. In the reasonably near future our organisation will have a few comrades going to do their military service.

Of course, they have the choice to refuse. Judged on recent evidence from our country this would involve four years in prison being tortured by fellow inmates. Another option would be to run away from the country, which would involve leaving your family and friends and your home and living illegally and working in the Turkish owned sweatshops of Berlin, or London.

Possibly the choice is not this harsh in the US or the UK, but there is a reason why the vast majority of grunts come from the working class and not from the echelons of collage educated Maoists.

There is no doubt that a big proportion of soldiers are forced to join the army, but for the iraqi resistance the word forced to join the army takes a completely new meaning. So in that regard the coalition troops and insurgents stand on equal grounds. This I find to be rather mercyful interpitation even.

Reasons why I cheer for insurgent victories come from elswhere.


Join the army or spend your life living unemployed and in poverty is not that much of a difference from the old capitalist 'free choice'; work or starve.
Agreed, though I would like to remind that there are hundreds if not thousands who have chosen to resist, and are therefore in prison even now. So to simply give up without even considering denial is laziness or perhaps even lack of empathy.


I don't see any attempt in the quotation which attempts to draw any sort of moral equivalence. I see a statement, which says that the soldiers on the floor doing the killing and being killed are manipulated. I think that it is plainly true.
True it is, yet again the same applies to the Iraqi, so my reasons to cheer Iraqi victories come from elswhere.



It doesn't bother me or not if Ranma killed people or not. the issue is not about personal guilt and moralism as many posters here seem to think. Given their stress on these issues one would presume that some of them would be more comfortable in religious groups that pretending to be communists.

Even if Ranma had shot down kids on the street in cold blood and then laughed about it, one of the basic tenets of revolutionary theory is that people change their political opinions through experience and struggle.

Agreed, though I might have a problem with shooting kids and actually laughing about it.



I don't agree with everything that Ranma says. However, I think that it is crucial for revolutionaries to engage with this issue, and this discussion. There can be no revolution without soldiers refusing to follow orders. At some point in a revolutionary struggle this will be a crucial issue.

It opens up questions which need to be answered. How should revolutionaries react when they find themselves as part of an occupying army.
True revolutionaries never find themselves in an occupying army. This stance is derived from the reason you yourself mentioned. Revolution cannot happen if soldiers always follow orders.

If soldiers later convert to our cause, that ofcourse is a different matter.

[benhur]

Let's be a little compassionate here. In some countries, you're forced to join the army. I believe in Israel, everyone has to serve in the army, no exceptions! Or, they land in jail. Either you join the army or you starve. Hobson's choice, isn't it? So even if you're a good person, you'll be forced to do things you may later regret. That's life. Nothing is black and white; it's always a grey area. There are many people who join the army out of sheer desperation. Hell, I know some people who go to college simply because they want to get out of home!

Bottom line, not everyone who joins the army wants to murder people in cold blood. Some of them are good people but are pushed into such situations through no fault of their own. They're doing it against their will, it's not like they enjoy being part of a killing squad.

[NecroCommie]

So, by your logic, if Nazis could have proven that they did not want to kill jews, we should have let them go?

Communism and class struggle are about actions, not intentions. If we were about intentions I would have joined the social democrat party.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Well, you joined the army in the first place. You knew what you'd be getting into and you did it anyway. I'd rather die than go there and do this sort of stuff.

And I presume you would never join the domestic police (which is too your credit).

I know of a working class girl from a relatively deprived council estate who joined the Free State police.

Are we now going to start here about how joining the police is okay too because they supply good jobs to working class kids?

Of course it is relatively less offensive than what this person did.

[benhur]

So, by your logic, if Nazis could have proven that they did not want to kill jews, we should have let them go?

Communism and class struggle are about actions, not intentions. If we were about intentions I would have joined the social democrat party.

Did you see The Downfall? If you did, you'd know what I am talking about.

[NecroCommie]

Did you see The Downfall? If you did, you'd know what I am talking about.
I have to admit that I never have. Is it a movie? available on youtube?

[AvanteRedGarde]

These US Maoist third-worldists always see things from their own point of view, don't they?

In fact, in many parts of the world joining the military is not a 'free choice'. In the reasonably near future our organisation will have a few comrades going to do their military service.

Of course, they have the choice to refuse. Judged on recent evidence from our country this would involve four years in prison being tortured by fellow inmates. Another option would be to run away from the country, which would involve leaving your family and friends and your home and living illegally and working in the Turkish owned sweatshops of Berlin, or London.

Possibly the choice is not this harsh in the US or the UK, but there is a reason why the vast majority of grunts come from the working class and not from the echelons of collage educated Maoists.

Join the army or spend your life living unemployed and in poverty is not that much of a difference from the old capitalist 'free choice'; work or starve.


I was specifically thinking about the U.S. when I wrote that. In many European countries, one can opt out of militray service through 'civil service.'

The 'poverty draft' in the U.S. is a myth. The bottom 20% by family income is underrepresented in the U.S. military. Your caricature of military service is far off. Poverty in the U.S. is a joke compared to that of the Third World. And while no doubt people from poorer communities join the U.S. military for various reasons, it is hardly an option that revolutionaries should be supporting.


I don't see any attempt in the quotation which attempts to draw any sort of moral equivalence. I see a statement, which says that the soldiers on the floor doing the killing and being killed are manipulated. I think that it is plainly true.

This bit of dogma does little for those who are at the receiving end of aggression.


It doesn't bother me or not if Ranma killed people or not. the issue is not about personal guilt and moralism as many posters here seem to think. Given their stress on these issues one would presume that some of them would be more comfortable in religious groups that pretending to be communists.


Good points on moralism. However, the real breakdown comes with class analysis and class struggle. It is pretty clear that imperialist occupation troops are enemies of those subject to imperialist aggression.



Even if Ranma had shot down kids on the street in cold blood and then laughed about it, one of the basic tenets of revolutionary theory is that people change their political opinions through experience and struggle.

Show me such a person and i'll show you an exception. Like you said, it's not about personal guilt or atonement. Imperialist troops are the enemies of those they are invading and oppressing.



I don't agree with everything that Ranma says. However, I think that it is crucial for revolutionaries to engage with this issue, and this discussion. There can be no revolution without soldiers refusing to follow orders. At some point in a revolutionary struggle this will be a crucial issue.


But it shouldn't be elevated, even in the case where revolutionary struggles actually happen, to be THE crucial issue.



It opens up questions which need to be answered. How should revolutionaries react when they find themselves as part of an occupying army. For us this is a practical question. Turkish conscripts are sent to the war in the South East and Afghanistan.


Good question, but Ranma wasn't part of a conscript army. It's almost a totally different situation. In turkey, you are forced by the state to fight for capital. Imperialist militaries are often voluntary or incentive based. There's a different class composition between the two.



It is worth discussing, indeed vital. The alternative is to continue to pout moralistic cliches.


Again, you are conflating two different issues. In the latter case of conscripts, I don't see the moral issue. People should be aiming to do what is most effective for the revolutionary struggle.

[Nakidana]

I don't think you have any knowledge of what situation Ranma was in. So it is very ignorant of you to assume she had any choice.

But she did have a choice. She had two options:

1) Go to Iraq along with her buddies and participate in the occupation with everything that entails.

2) Maybe go to jail and get a criminal record. (I don't know how the record would affect her future possibilities in the UK)

With those two options presented to you, what do you do as a revolutionary?

I'm having a hard time seeing how you can claim to be a principled revolutionary and then go on to betray those principles when the time comes. Muhammad Ali wasn't a revolutionary but he had the courage to refuse, even though he could be punished with up to five years in prison and lose his career. Ehren Watada refused even though he had only one month of service in Iraq, and he could face up to eight years in prison.

If there is one thing that we can agree on, it is that people should not serve in Iraq. Yet when the choice is finally put forward, it seems half the people on this forum are not really as revolutionary as they claim to be. When it really comes down to it, they would rather kill Iraqis than serve jail time. Kind of sad really. History is full of revolutionaries who stood by their politics even when the consequence was jail, torture, exile or death.

Now I don't know if Ranma42 thought of herself as a revolutionary when she joined the army. If she did, and she knew that she might get sent to Afghanistan or Iraq, I find her to be hypocritical. If she was a revolutionary when she was presented with the choice above, I also find her to be hypocritical.

If she was of another political persuasion at the time, I now find her to be unapologetic. She claims to be a socialist, but refuses to admit she made a wrong decision. She doesn't regret her actions but instead tries to justify them. The "no wonder they snapped" comment clearly shows her sympathy for the horrible actions of the British army abroad.

Why were Iraqis throwing stones? "they were manipulated by clerics"

Sounds like something from Fox News.

[Bitter Ashes]

But she did have a choice. She had two options:

1) Go to Iraq along with her buddies and participate in the occupation with everything that entails.

2) Maybe go to jail and get a criminal record. (I don't know how the record would affect her future possibilities in the UK)

With those two options presented to you, what do you do as a revolutionary?

I'm having a hard time seeing how you can claim to be a principled revolutionary and then go on to betray those principles when the time comes. Muhammad Ali wasn't a revolutionary but he had the courage to refuse, even though he could be punished with up to five years in prison and lose his career. Ehren Watada refused even though he had only one month of service in Iraq, and he could face up to eight years in prison.

If there is one thing that we can agree on, it is that people should not serve in Iraq. Yet when the choice is finally put forward, it seems half the people on this forum are not really as revolutionary as they claim to be. When it really comes down to it, they would rather kill Iraqis than serve jail time. Kind of sad really. History is full of revolutionaries who stood by their politics even when the consequence was jail, torture, exile or death.

Now I don't know if Ranma42 thought of herself as a revolutionary when she joined the army. If she did, and she knew that she might get sent to Afghanistan or Iraq, I find her to be hypocritical. If she was a revolutionary when she was presented with the choice above, I also find her to be hypocritical.
What's your point? That I wasnt brave enough to throw myself at the mercy of the bourgeois? Yes, I admit it! I spent a week in a military jail once and I swore that I'd never go there again. Until you've seen the kind of hell that the RMP engeneer for soldiers you have no right whatsoever to even attempt to condemn me for not wanting to go back to that. You must have seen the pictures yourself of what goes on in those jails and probably (hopefully) showed ample disgust at how the prisoners were treated and I'll tell you something, you havent even scratched the tip of the iceberg yet. Put yourself in my shoes for a moment, or if that's too difficult, put yourself in the shoes of the Iraqi prisoners and ask yourself whether you'd volunteer to undergo that treatment. I was most certainly not enlightened back then, but in the same sitaution happened again, I'd still do as I was told because at the end of the day I am not insane. So, how dare you, insist that somebody throws themselves into that world when you're sat on your backside in college somewhere with no idea what on earth you're talking about.


If she was of another political persuasion at the time, I now find her to be unapologetic. She claims to be a socialist, but refuses to admit she made a wrong decision. She doesn't regret her actions but instead tries to justify them. The "no wonder they snapped" comment clearly shows her sympathy for the horrible actions of the British army abroad.

Why were Iraqis throwing stones? "they were manipulated by clerics"

Sounds like something from Fox News.
The "no wonder they snapped" comment is exactly the sort of thing that I'm having trouble with you understanding. I was at the time, just as these other soldiers in the tape no doubt, totaly unapproached by any attempt to engadge me with socialism. The only thing these soldiers knew at the time was that they'd been whisked away from thier homes to a war they didnt want to fight to overthrow a dictator that they were told was hated. Then the mobs appear and start trying to kill them. Is it so hard to understand that these soldiers could not understand the motive for this attack on them? Are they somehow not human and wont respond to what I'm sure they belived was an unprovoked attack?

And the "were manipulated by clerics" comment? How did I reach that assumption? Well, it's when the rioters start chanting "KAFIR! KAFIR! KAFIR!". Look the word up. These were not an empowered working class. They were manipulated, just as Europeans were manipulated by the Catholic clergy during the crusades. I dont hold them accountable for bieng lured into this anymore, because I was lured into exactly the same kind of behavior by the Army, so I can connect with these people now. It doesnt change that they're taking orders just like I was.

[Devrim]

I said:
These US Maoist third-worldists always see things from their own point of view, don't they?

And our resident 'third-worldist' Maoist said:


I was specifically thinking about the U.S. when I wrote that.

I think that it is pretty typical. Generally from reading your posts I get the impression that you have no idea what the 'third world' that you glorify so much is really like, and you mostly draw your ideas from America.



The 'poverty draft' in the U.S. is a myth. The bottom 20% by family income is underrepresented in the U.S. military. Your caricature of military service is far off. Poverty in the U.S. is a joke compared to that of the Third World.

I would like to see the statistics on this, but even if it is true, the working class is not only the bottom 20%.


And while no doubt people from poorer communities join the U.S. military for various reasons, it is hardly an option that revolutionaries should be supporting.

I don't support it. I am merely saying that you can't right off people because they join the army. Above all communists believe in the possibility of chance and the development of class consciousness.


Good question, but Ranma wasn't part of a conscript army. It's almost a totally different situation. In turkey, you are forced by the state to fight for capital. Imperialist militaries are often voluntary or incentive based. There's a different class composition between the two.

So the Turkish state isn't imperialist. I wonder what Turkish troops are doing in Northern Iraq, Northern Cyprus, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Kosovo...

DEvrim

[Devrim]

Agreed, though I might have a problem with shooting kids and actually laughing about it.

I was taking the argument to its extreme to make a point there. Shooting kids and laughing about it is pretty disturbed, yet revolutionaries still envisage the possiblity of change.


True revolutionaries never find themselves in an occupying army. This stance is derived from the reason you yourself mentioned. Revolution cannot happen if soldiers always follow orders.

If soldiers later convert to our cause, that ofcourse is a different matter.

But the question is what happens when soldiers find that they have become revolutionaries.

Devrim

[NecroCommie]

Is it so hard to understand that these soldiers could not understand the motive for this attack on them? Are they somehow not human and wont respond to what I'm sure they belived was an unprovoked attack?


It does not take a sherlock to understand the motive of these Iraqis.

[NecroCommie]

I was taking the argument to its extreme to make a point there. Shooting kids and laughing about it is pretty disturbed, yet revolutionaries still envisage the possiblity of change.



But the question is what happens when soldiers find that they have become revolutionaries.

Devrim

I know You used it just as an example, but I elaborated my non-dramatized response just incase. ;)

Yees, that one is a good question, and I honestly think that they should immediately deny all their imperialistic activities. I do have to admit that I have almost always been a revolutionary, so I'm having a hard time putting myself into the shoes of a fresh convert.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

As I have illustrated many times previously Ranma's HISTORY is just that HISTORY. We should judge peoples legitimacy as lefitists by what they do now. And Ranma has proved great knowledge and shown she is dedicated to the class struggle.

[khad]

As I have illustrated many times previously Ranma's HISTORY is just that HISTORY. We should judge peoples legitimacy as lefitists by what they do now. And Ranma has proved great knowledge and shown she is dedicated to the class struggle.
Yes, it is history. But not history when the person in question continues to offer statements in support of, rationalizing, and minimizing the facts of imperialist militarism.

That's what people find troubling, HISTORY be damned.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Ranma is not defending the imperialists. She stated before she thought the UK should haven't been in Iraq in the first place.

[FreeFocus]

Ranma is not defending the imperialists. She stated before she thought the UK should haven't been in Iraq in the first place.

She's defending troops who currently occupy the country. Moreover, ask her about the IRA.

[khad]

Ranma is not defending the imperialists. She stated before she thought the UK should haven't been in Iraq in the first place.
Did I say defend? I say rationalize and minimize.

[ls]

Go peddle your bullshit on a web forum dedicated to commonly held misconceptions.

Very interesting, I'm sometimes sure there are sections here dedicated to exactly that. You know, mystifying and revising the truth.


The poverty draft is a myth. The bottom 20% of American society is underrepresented in the military.


The 'poverty draft' in the U.S. is a myth. The bottom 20% by family income is underrepresented in the U.S. military.

You've said that twice now without any sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html ..they must all be landowning gentry then.

http://www.abanet.org/poladv/priorities/militarylegal/

Why would special assistance for low-income military personnel exist if there weren't enough people in that bracket to warrant it?

https://www2398.ssldomain.com/nlihc/detail/article.cfm?article_id=696&id=44

The national low-income housing co has a special programme also.

Perhaps your argument is based on this: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/976020/report_military_attracts_more_high.html?cat=47


In fact, according to the report's findings, only 11 percent of enlisted recruits last year came from the poorest quintile of neighborhoods.

So you might even try quoting that at 11%, I think we should remember however that not one but all of these are biased sources produced by the very people who send the troops to war.


Another imperialist troop dead? Good. I hope Afghanistan and Iraq become mass graves for imperialist troops.

A very good idea in your mind at least. Perhaps if we broke down the term imperialism beyond the way it supposedly suits your third-worldist crap we could work out that actually, imperialism is not necessarily limited to states lest first-world states - it can also be a movement based on beliefs i.e. an imperialist multistate "Islamic" (in a twisted and manipulated interpretation of the Qur'an by any measure) one. To deny the authoritarian and imperialist multistate nature of radical "Islamic" groups that work in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places is extremely ignorant.

The fact you support a first world country in an imperialist struggle against another first world country (Ireland, Britain) just goes to show how your "third-worldist" politics even at the base level are completely meaningless tripe.

[khad]

This is all very funny to me. I was just having a conversation with my friend who spent half a dozen years in the military, and he pretty much scoffed at the idea of these soldiers being part of the working class. In fact, the very idea of a professional military (in the USUK at least) has accomplished a separation of the military from the working class and from public opinion. It doesn't matter what class background these soldiers have.

[khad]

So glad to see he's warmed to your septic third-worldist crap.

I'm sure you feel quite happy saying that, mission accomplished in your eyes I guess. The people who must be purged separated from the purgers - what a success for the proletariat.
Mine? He was already thinking that way before he met me. He is active in troop activism because he believes that people in the military need to get out and rejoin society first--before you can talk about any sort of class mobilization.

I really find it a hoot that I'm getting fingers pointed at me by people who don't know jack about the military or how it works.

And, according to suicidal fools like you, Marx must have been the originator of "septic third-worldist crap."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/09/16.htm


The first blow dealt to the French monarchy proceeded from the nobility, not from the peasants. The Indian revolt does not commence with the Ryots, tortured, dishonored and stripped naked by the British, but with the Sepoys, clad, fed, petted, fatted and pampered by them. To find parallels to the Sepoy atrocities, we need not, as some London papers pretend, fall back on the middle ages, not, even wander beyond the history of contemporary England. All we want is to study the first Chinese war, an event, so to say, of yesterday. The English soldiery then committed abominations for the mere fun of it; their passions being neither sanctified by religious fanaticism nor exacerbated by hatred against an overbearing and conquering race, nor provoked by the stern resistance of a heroic enemy. The violations of women, the spittings of children, the roastings of whole villages, were then mere wanton sports, not recorded by Mandarins, but by British officers themselves.

[AvanteRedGarde]

So you might even try quoting that at 11%, I think we should remember however that not one but all of these are biased sources produced by the very people who send the troops to war.


So basically, according to you, the poverty draft is real and all these sources which say that the bottom fifth is underrepresented are just spouting lies. I'm really tired right now, but I'm sure this fits the description of a psychological disorder.



A very good idea in your mind at least. Perhaps if we broke down the term imperialism beyond the way it supposedly suits your third-worldist crap we could work out that actually, imperialism is not necessarily limited to states lest first-world states - it can also be a movement based on beliefs i.e. an imperialist multistate "Islamic" (in a twisted and manipulated interpretation of the Qur'an by any measure) one. To deny the authoritarian and imperialist multistate nature of radical "Islamic" groups that work in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places is extremely ignorant.


You sound like an anarchist. You keep fighting the "imperialist nature" of various things (states, islam, whatever). I will be directing my attention towards the capitalist imperialist system.


The fact you support a first world country in an imperialist struggle against another first world country (Ireland, Britain) just goes to show how your "third-worldist" politics even at the base level are completely meaningless tripe.

I have no clue what you are talking about. Drink a cup of coffee and sober up before you post again.

[ls]

So basically, according to you, the poverty draft is real and all these sources which say that the bottom fifth is underrepresented are just spouting lies. I'm really tired right now, but I'm sure this fits the description of a psychological disorder.

I'm saying that people are drafted into the military and targeted deliberately because they are poor, yes. That is not "exclusive" to the united states either.


You sound like an anarchist. You keep fighting the "imperialist nature" of various things (states, islam, whatever). I will be directing my attention towards the capitalist imperialist system.

And I suppose first world workers are "helping" keep it going, wait but does that include workers in Ireland?


I have no clue what you are talking about. Drink a cup of coffee and sober up before you post again.

What I wrote seems perfectly rational. Your logic of "third-worldism" in the first-world on the other hand..

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't know about you Khad, but I'm still waiting for someone to prove that troops are capable of revolutionary class consciousness. So far I've seen a lot of rhetorical that sounds like its coming from the American Friends Service Committee, but no results or evidence. It seems to be a common occurrence here.

Like I said, if you think troops are progressive working class people, then prove it. As far as i can tell, they are degenerate, baby killing, stooges for imperialism.

What I think is that not all people in the army join with the interest of going to war or killing babies, they just think this is their only option. I think these people are capable of class consciousness.

[ls]

Here's some "fast facts" (http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm) about the US's "voluntary" drafting and conscription.

Note the one about citizenship and college loans and funds.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I'm saying that people are drafted into the military and targeted deliberately because they are poor, yes. That is not "exclusive" to the united states either.

Obviously, at least in the U.S., it's not working too well. Like I said, the bottom 20% is underrepresented in the military. You cited 11%; off the top of my head I thought it was around 13-14%. The point is the same. In the U.S., the poor are not included in the military at a disproportionately high rate; they are included in a disproportionately low rate.

You say the "poor" are targeted. I don't doubt you think this because you probably think most Americans are poor. It's probably one big grey area for you.


And I suppose first world workers are "helping" keep it going, wait but does that include workers in Ireland?

What the fuck are you talking about? I've never said a word about Ireland. If you want to ask a tangential question, just be straightforward and pm me or start another thread.

As far as i can tell, you brought up Ireland out of thin air. Like I said, I never said anything about Ireland and I have no idea where you got that idea.


What I wrote seems perfectly rational. Your logic of "third-worldism" in the first-world on the other hand..

I want one of what you are having...

[Chambered Word]

I personally view most wars as an example of the bourgeoisie ordering the sheep to fight for their abstract dreams of glory and wishes, but I dare to say that Afghanistan is different. The Taliban, whom the coalition are currently trying to fight in Afghanistan, truly are terrorists. They wish to enforce their oppressive religious laws on innocent women and I would personally love to see them all hung by their own entrails. There are some nasty people who make it into the army, such as the Abu Ghraib torturers etc, but generally those in the military are quite decent people.

[Devrim]

I don't know about you Khad, butI'm still waiting for someone to prove that troops are capable of revolutionary class consciousness. So far I've seen a lot of rhetorical that sounds like its coming from the American Friends Service Committee, but no results or evidence. It seems to be a common occurrence here.

Like I said, if you think troops are progressive working class people, then prove it. As far as i can tell, they are degenerate, baby killing, stooges for imperialism.

Perhaps you should read about the history of the Russian revolution.

Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Perhaps you should read about the history of the Russian revolution.

Devrim

I think he means armies that are voluntary not conscripted.