Party for Socialism and Liberation: What is the true character of the demonstrations?

[Kassad]

http://www.pslweb.org/images/content/pagebuilder/52371.jpg

Eyewitness Iran: What is the true character of the demonstrations
Monday, June 22, 2009
By: Mazda Majidi

The eyes of the world have focused on Iran since the June 12 presidential election. The turnout was exceptionally high, with 42 million people, 85 percent of the electorate, going to the polls. Incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner with 63 percent of the vote. Ahmadinejad's chief rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, declared himself the winner and called the announced results fraudulent. Iran has since been the scene of large daily protests.

A landslide victory by Ahmadinejad was not improbable. An op-ed piece by Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty published in the June 15 Washington Post states that the election results conform to their pre-election polling. "Our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin—greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election," Ballen and Doherty asserted. The survey of 1,001 respondents, conducted by phone between May 11 and May 20, had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. The study was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Neither the Fund nor the Washington Post could be accused of having a pro-Ahmadinejad bias.


Of course, we are not in a position to know if fraud took place and to what extent. Nor can one be sure whether one or both sides engaged in some level of voter fraud. Voter fraud is rather widespread in the United States and both the Democratic and Republican parties have engaged in it. If the allegations of the opposition in Iran were true, this would have had to be voter fraud on a huge and massive scale. Interestingly, the opposition only seeks an annulment of the election rather than a recount of the disputed votes.


Bourgeois elections

In bourgeois elections, the citizenry is offered a choice between candidates that are acceptable to ruling class interests. In Iran's elections, as in those of other countries, the candidates running for president were all acceptable options to the regime. All four had a long history of holding key posts. Ahmadinejad was the incumbent president; Mousavi was the prime minister of Iran in the first decade of the revolution; Mahdi Karroubi was a two-term head of Majliss (Iran's Parliament); and Mohsen Reza'i was a long-serving commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.


The array of the class forces lined up behind the candidates is far more important than the electoral details. Mousavi's social base is primarily among the upper and middle class elements, professionals, people with a higher education and students. Ahmadinejad's social base, on the other hand, is primarily among the lower sectors of the middle class, the urban poor and most people of all classes in the provinces and rural areas. A cursory glance at the photos of the demonstrators on both sides confirms this class composition.


The class character of the conflict is more obvious when we look at the key issues in the elections. Mousavi and the other candidates have accused Ahmadinejad of economic mismanagement and inflationary policiesbuying votes by giving "handouts" to poor and large state-funded projects in the provinces. These "handouts," ongoing during Ahmadinejad’s four-year tenure, consisted of substantial increases in state employees' salaries and pensions, cash benefits to the needy and other forms of benefits including expanding healthcare. In a May 15 speech Mousavi attacked these programs, saying: "Distribution of money and opportunities as alms is hardly an instrument of growth and development." (Irantracker.org, May 13)


Ahmadinejad's "adventurous" foreign policy has been another key election issue. His foreign policy has consisted of an uncompromising stance against the United States on the nuclear energy issue, outspoken opposition to the racist state of Israel, steadfast support for liberation movements in Palestine and Lebanon and expanding friendly relations with revolutionary and progressive governments around the globe, including those of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia.


As noted in the June 21 Associated Press article titled "Israeli president [Peres] applauds Iran street protesters," the Israeli ruling establishment is openly hoping for the victory of what they call "the revolution" in Iran. The June 22 Jerusalem Post features an article on how the pro-U.S. regimes in the Arab world echo Peres sentiments, which begins: “Many Arab governments, including the Palestinian Authority, are quietly hoping that the latest crisis in Iran will mark the beginning of the end of the radical regime of the ayatollahs and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

Ahmadinejad is certainly no representative of the working class. The only true working-class orientation is a socialist orientation; moving in the direction of eliminating private ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class. But within the confines of capitalist relations, Ahmadinejad's political line represents more income and benefits for the poor.


Anti-government protests embraced by imperialism

The post-election events have made the stakes much higher than a simple presidential election and a choice between candidates. Between June 13 and June 19, hundreds of thousands, some reports say millions, have demonstrated in Tehran demanding the annulment of the June 12 elections. There were other smaller demonstrations during the week in other major cities. While people of all classes with various grievances have joined the demonstrations, the central political thrust of the protests has a righward trajectory, in regard to both domestic and international issues. The dominant composition of the protests has been middle class and the privileged sectors of society.


Imperialist media sources, to which many Iranians, particularly the more privileged sectors, have access through satellite TV, played a key organizing role. BBC Farsi and Voice of America, continuously broadcasting into Iran, did their part in announcing the time and place of planned demonstrations. They also provided live coverage by interviewing people who used their cell phones to call and transmit images.


The Islamic Republic has attempted to jam these broadcasts with some success. Still, demonstrators rely on many other sources, including counter-revolutionary monarchist channels based in Los Angeles that do their best to broadcast information, and misinformation, to increase the size and intensity of the demonstrations.


During some of the street protests, buses were burned, buildings were vandalized and destroyed, large fires were made in the streets and rocks were thrown at the police. The millions of dollars of U.S. funding for "promoting democracy" in Iran were put to use. Among the demonstrators were agents and provocateurs whose specific purpose was to wreak havoc and cause maximum destruction. Iranian TV channels aired interviews with captured agents of the MKO, the imperialist supported terrorist organization, who acknowledged having been instructed to set gas stations on fire and destroy buildings. During the first week, repression of the demonstrations was limited, as evident from the number of demonstrators and the relatively low instances of state violence.


On June 19, Ayatollah Khamenei, the central leader, made an important speech at the Friday prayers, attended by hundreds of thousands of supporters. Khamenei announced that the specific complaints of the three losing candidates would be fully reviewed and the ballots of the disputed boxes would be recounted. This was followed by a June 20 announcement that, as a confidence building measure, a randomly selected 10 percent of the ballots would be recounted and the results announced. Khamenei also warned that unpermitted demonstrations that had been allowed in the week following the elections would now be dealt with legally and forcefully.


On the next day, anti-government protesters attempted to demonstrate in central Tehran. Western sources put the number of people at 3,000. But this time, the police in riot gear met would-be demonstrators with force, using water cannons, tear gas and batons. This turned into a violent confrontation. Iranian TV showed police being beaten by demonstrators. Western media sources showed footage of the police attacking the demonstrators. The street clashes caused at least 10 deaths, bringing the total number of people killed since the elections to 17.


On the day of this writing, June 21, there were no reports of significant protests in Tehran or elsewhere.


With typical arrogance, imperialist powers have directly intervened in the internal affairs of Iran, a sovereign country. President Obama has called "on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people." On June 19, the U.S. House voted 405-1 to condemn the crackdown on protest rallies. The Senate passed a similar resolution. The House resolution openly backs anti-government demonstrators, supporting "all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law."

Some imperialist leaders, including French President Sarkozy, have openly called the Iranian elections fraudulent, with no evidence to back their claim. George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential elections after being fraudulently declared the winner in the state of Florida by five appointed-for-life millionaires who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Gore won the popular balloting by more than a half-million votes. But the great "Democracies" did not intervene. The U.S. elections were considered an internal matter.


Diplomatic norms of behavior like refraining from commenting on and interfering with other countries' internal matters do not apply to the relationship between imperialist and oppressed countries, particularly ones that take an independent course. Imperialists see it as their prerogative to preach democracy and human rights even while brutally occupying other countries against the will of the occupied people. Ironically, but not coincidentally, two of those coutries—Iraq and Afghanistan—share long borders with Iran.


Some liberal and progressive forces in the United States, as well as some that claim to be leftists, have echoed the U.S. Congress and the whole imperialist establishment, expressing full support for the demonstrators. Some have even declared the demonstrations as the start of a new revolution in Iran.


Not a new revolutionary movement

There are no examples in history when a true revolutionary movement has been embraced and supported by all the imperialist governments in the world. There have been occasions when an imperialist government temporarily forges an arrangement with a communist or national liberation movement or even a socialist government that is fighting the same "enemy." There are examples of this in both the first and second World Wars. When the entire imperialist world lines up to support a protest movement that seeks to topple a government that has already been targeted for "regime change," one can be sure that they know that this so-called revolution is in fact a movement to the right.


Imperialism is about subjugating the people around the globe to steal their resources. Why would all the imperialists defend a revolutionary movement? Are there any examples in history when a revolutionary movement has been led by privileged layers of society against the poor and working people? The point of a revolution is to eliminate inequitable social relations. How could the privileged classes in any society lead a "revolutionary" movement that seeks to reduce and cutback the benefits and services of poor and working people? That is Mousavi’s program! And that program has an appeal to the privileged classes who have been in the streets.


Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements. In today's imperialist-dominated world, the character of true revolutionary movements in oppressed countries is either socialist or nationalist, depending on whether the working class or the national bourgeoisie leads them. In either case, the revolutionary movement aspires to free the country of imperialist dominance, protect the country's resources and win independence.

Counter-revolutionary movements move in the opposite direction, aspiring to move the country towards an imperialist-friendly regime that implements neoliberal economic policies and restores or increases the privileges of the propertied classes.


Mousavi, the main losing candidate in Iran's elections, is no imperialist pawn. The demonstrations since the elections have not really been about Mousavi, as openly acknowledged by many demonstrators and their supporters. The demonstrations have become the rallying point for elements in Iranian society, mostly from the privileged classes, against the Islamic Republic regime and in favor of a pro-west, capitalist regime. If the demonstrations manage to destabilize and ultimately topple the Islamic Republic, the result will definitely not be a pro-worker, independent regime.


The political character of the anti-regime movement, no matter how many people have demonstrated, is not a left opposition to the Islamic Republic regime; it is a right opposition. U.S. and British imperialism hope that a victory of this movement would result in the counter-revolutionary overthrow of the anti-colonial 1979 revolution. That is why all the imperialist countries are unanimous in their support for the demonstrators, some stated overtly and some in more subtle ways. The character of the movement against the regime is similar to those of the U.S.-orchestrated color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and the counter-revolutionary student protests against the progressive Chavez regime in Venezuela.

The task of revolutionaries and progressives in the United States is to condemn imperialist intervention in Iran and support the right of self determination for the Iranian people. U.S. Hands Off Iran!

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

This was already posted by TC in another thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-really-going-t111610/index.html

[Kassad]

This was already posted by TC in another thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-really-going-t111610/index.html

Sorry, my mistake. Thanks.

[MilitantWorker]

good article. many valid points were made. i agree with a lot of what has been said.

but, national liberation is a joke. why support workers fighting other workers in the name of a national movement? especially one that almost always benefits the ruling class!

what happened to real communists? you know the ones that fight for a WORLD WIDE WORKING CLASS REVOLUTION...? you know, as in the **INTERNATIONAL** Workingmen's Association...or the 1st **INTERNATIONAL**....

[manic expression]

good article. many valid points were made. i agree with a lot of what has been said.

but, national liberation is a joke. why support workers fighting other workers in the name of a national movement? especially one that almost always benefits the ruling class!

what happened to real communists? you know the ones that fight for a WORLD WIDE WORKING CLASS REVOLUTION...? you know, as in the **INTERNATIONAL** Workingmen's Association...or the 1st **INTERNATIONAL**....

Comrade, one can support national liberation while working for proletarian revolution, the two are not contradictory. The interests of the Palestinian working class, for instance, is in defeating the Zionist occupation of their lands; unless this is accomplished, there can be little progress for the Palestinian workers. I think our Irish comrades will agree that the Irish workers' victories against British imperialism (a struggle which must be completed, not forgotten) have helped the march of the working class.

[MilitantWorker]

I'd firstly like to thank the comrade Manic for taking the time to reply.


Comrade, one can support national liberation while working for proletarian revolution, the two are not contradictory.

I believe, in order to defeat class and capital, the proletarian revolution must be an international one. So to me they are contradictory. Completely. As we've seen, most predominately in Russia, socialism in one country isolates the countries working class from the rest of the world. However, more importantly, the rest of the world is isolated from the revolution by the ruling classes.


The interests of the Palestinian working class, for instance, is in defeating the Zionist occupation of their lands

The interest of the Palestinian working class, as with all others, is to eliminate capital and class and lay the foundations to a communist society. This coming from a proud Palestinian American.

[manic expression]

I agree, comrade, but can we expect the working class of Palestine to make any significant steps toward eliminating capital and class when they are being massacred by Zionists every day? We learn from Marx that class struggle takes on a "national character", that the proletariat must "constitute itself the nation"; these are the tasks of building a revolution, and they are improbable to impossible if imperialist oppression is not defeated.

Lastly, the whole point of national liberation is that it enables the workers to achieve revolution; that is why the liberation of Palestine is intricately tied to the liberation of the American working class (for example). This is fully internationalist.

This is a bit off-topic, so that's all I'll say on the matter, I think. At any rate, I appreciate your comments on this issue.

[Robespierre2.0]

I believe, in order to defeat class and capital, the proletarian revolution must be an international one. So to me they are contradictory. Completely. As we've seen, most predominately in Russia, socialism in one country isolates the countries working class from the rest of the world. However, more importantly, the rest of the world is isolated from the revolution by the ruling classes.


Well, of course. Where and whenever socialism springs up, the capitalists will attempt to isolate it, so you can't really use that as an argument against socialism in one country.

What other alternative is there? It's preposterous to expect that every country will be 'ripe for revolution' at the same time, so if we can manage to establish workers' power in one corner of the globe and use it as a base to spread it to the rest of the world, as per the USSR, then why shouldn't we?

[Idealism]

Ahmadinejad is certainly no representative of the working class. The only true working-class orientation is a socialist orientation; moving in the direction of eliminating private ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class. But within the confines of capitalist relations, Ahmadinejad's political line represents more income and benefits for the poor.


Does this mean to say the Ahmadinejad is good in a relative sense?
Didnt he torture people and wasnt he extremely oppressive to his own people?
I ask because I dont know whether he was like that or not.

[Kassad]

Does this mean to say the Ahmadinejad is good in a relative sense?
Didnt he torture people and wasnt he extremely oppressive to his own people?
I ask because I dont know whether he was like that or not.

Not exactly. Ahmadinejad is a reactionary, plain and simple. He does not have a socialist mindset and he is not working to implement many reforms (he's criticized for distributing wealth, which is a significant reason so much of his support comes from rural and impoverished areas. He's a capitalist, so don't mix the two up) that will benefit the working class and he is certainly not promoting revolutionary socialism. However, at the current time, Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are very anti-American, in that they refuse to subject the Iranian people and the Iranian resources to outside imperialist exploitation. However, if the regime is toppled by a pro-Western regime and not a socialist or a progressive movement, this could result in imperialist powers finally staking claim to Iran's resources, which they have a deep interest in. I and my party are stating that until a movement arises that will put the working class first in Iran, we will not support the destruction of the regime. However, this may not be a distant possibility, in which the Party for Socialism and Liberation will support a workers movement that could mean progressive change for Iran. Until then, we stand resolute in defending Iran from imperialist intervention and exploitation.

[Martin Blank]

However, at the current time, Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are very anti-American, in that they refuse to subject the Iranian people and the Iranian resources to outside imperialist exploitation. However, if the regime is toppled by a pro-Western regime and not a socialist or a progressive movement, this could result in imperialist powers finally staking claim to Iran's resources, which they have a deep interest in.... Until then, we stand resolute in defending Iran from imperialist intervention and exploitation.

This has been a common theme from the "anti-imperialists" for a while now, and it's time someone calls a halt to it. The implication of these arguments, whether crudely made or with a more sophisticated flair, is that Iran's major natural resources (natural gas and oil) are not currently being "exploited" by imperialism -- that imperialism has not "staked a claim".

Now, if by "imperialism" you only mean U.S. imperialism, you're right. Since 1979, Washington has imposed regime after regime of sanctions on Iran, attempting to strangle the Islamic Republic. However, the U.S. is not the only imperialist country, and the Anglo-American Axis, the cartel of imperialist Great Power states dominated by Washington and London, is not the only game in town.

There is also the Quadruple Entente, Washington's main rival cartel: France, Germany, Russia and China. Unlike the Americans, the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese are heavily invested in Iran's natural resources -- have "staked their claim" to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in investments. The Entente's main and secondary members, including Italy, Norway, the Netherlands and Spain have also invested and are currently "exploiting" Iran's oil and natural gas resources. Iran's petro-exchange, which opened in 2008, trades in euros, not dollars, and has become the main competitor to the two petro-exchanges in London and New York.

The BRIC alliance (Brazil, Russia, India and China) has also invested heavily in Iran's oil and natural gas reserves, as has Japan (a former rival-cum-client growing increasingly independent of the Anglo-Americans). Even the British have attempted to side-step their alliance with American imperialism to cash in on the lucrative oil and natural gas deals Tehran has offered the world.

To say that Iran is not now being "exploited" by imperialism, or that the Great Power states haven't "staked a claim" in Iran's natural resources is either ignorant foolishness or an attempt to conceal the reality of the situation in the name of a blind adherence to a false viewpoint. Iran is a part of the imperialist world order. The issue is to which cartel it will adhere: The Anglo-Americans or the Quadruple Entente?

If we were to concede to these "anti-imperialists" that the victory of Mousavi would mean the victory of the Anglo-Americans, then it is equally necessary to recognize that the continued rule of Ahmadinejad signals the continued domination by the Entente imperialists ... and supporting either faction, even critically, means siding with one imperialist cartel over another.

This, of course, all dependent on conceding to the belief that: a) those in the streets of Iran are all supporters of Mousavi and followers of his movement, and b) that Mousavi is working for Washington. If one or both of these statements is false, however, then it's necessary for a fundamental re-think on the part of the "anti-imperialists", lest they continue to run the risk of being painted as stooges of the "other imperialism".

[Blackscare]

I believe, in order to defeat class and capital, the proletarian revolution must be an international one.


Have fun waiting for the stars to align perfectly so that every country on earth can come together at once and create communism from nothing.



Personally, I think that the prospect of a higher degree of political freedom, less clerical power, and the inevitable disillusionment that this whole affair will cause, may ultimately prove to be a boon to the leftist movement in Iran. Do I think that Mousavi is a savior? Of course not.

I do, however, believe that the net effect of this possible 'revolution' will be positive.


It seems to me that people on here are falling over each other to denounce this as simple bourgeois infighting (which it is) that holds no possible benefit to the left (which is untrue).

Obviously this isn't going to directly cause socialism or communism to be realized in Iran. But, it may lead to conditions much more favorable to creating a worker's movement. You can't have everything all at once, people. This isn't our movement (by that I mean the general radical left), but that does not mean that it is necessarily bad for our purposes.


Now, I'm not saying that it is necessarily going to be better. Perhaps a more repressive government is more conducive to creating worker's resistance? I can't provide those answers. I just think that denouncing the whole affair because it simply isn't socialist, regardless of it's potential benefits, is unrealistic.

[KC]

This, of course, all dependent on conceding to the belief that: a) those in the streets of Iran are all supporters of Mousavi and followers of his movement, and b) that Mousavi is working for Washington. If one or both of these statements is false, however, then it's necessary for a fundamental re-think on the part of the "anti-imperialists", lest they continue to run the risk of being painted as stooges of the "other imperialism".

To clarify, both are.

[manic expression]

This has been a common theme from the "anti-imperialists" for a while now, and it's time someone calls a halt to it. The implication of these arguments, whether crudely made or with a more sophisticated flair, is that Iran's major natural resources (natural gas and oil) are not currently being "exploited" by imperialism -- that imperialism has not "staked a claim".

Now, if by "imperialism" you only mean U.S. imperialism, you're right. Since 1979, Washington has imposed regime after regime of sanctions on Iran, attempting to strangle the Islamic Republic. However, the U.S. is not the only imperialist country, and the Anglo-American Axis, the cartel of imperialist Great Power states dominated by Washington and London, is not the only game in town.

Let's not ignore history. Ever since the Suez Canal conflict in 1956, Washington has consistently called the shots in the imperialist sphere. Not only Britain, but France and other imperialist powers have been under the beck and call of the American bourgeoisie. Sure, the Washington-London imperialists aren't the only imperialists in the world, but their influence over France and Germany is not to be underestimated.


There is also the Quadruple Entente, Washington's main rival cartel: France, Germany, Russia and China. Unlike the Americans, the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese are heavily invested in Iran's natural resources -- have "staked their claim" to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in investments. The Entente's main and secondary members, including Italy, Norway, the Netherlands and Spain have also invested and are currently "exploiting" Iran's oil and natural gas resources. Iran's petro-exchange, which opened in 2008, trades in euros, not dollars, and has become the main competitor to the two petro-exchanges in London and New York.

The BRIC alliance (Brazil, Russia, India and China) has also invested heavily in Iran's oil and natural gas reserves, as has Japan (a former rival-cum-client growing increasingly independent of the Anglo-Americans). Even the British have attempted to side-step their alliance with American imperialism to cash in on the lucrative oil and natural gas deals Tehran has offered the world.

To say that Iran is not now being "exploited" by imperialism, or that the Great Power states haven't "staked a claim" in Iran's natural resources is either ignorant foolishness or an attempt to conceal the reality of the situation in the name of a blind adherence to a false viewpoint. Iran is a part of the imperialist world order. The issue is to which cartel it will adhere: The Anglo-Americans or the Quadruple Entente?

There is one important point you are missing: the Iranian state has, in its dealings with the capitalist countries you've mentioned, been able to operate independently, on its own terms. Neither France nor Germany nor Japan nor Brazil nor India have the means or the ambition to force Iran into submission. The US, as we all know, has tried and is trying to do exactly that. The quintessential imperialist arm-wrestling we see employed by the American bourgeoisie in every part of the world cannot, at present, be utilized by the ascendant imperialists of such countries.

In addition, remember that the American bourgeoisie does, still, call most of the shots in the imperialist camp. Are American troops being deployed to imperialist wars started by Germany or Japan? No, it's the other way around, and that's certainly no coincidence.


If we were to concede to these "anti-imperialists" that the victory of Mousavi would mean the victory of the Anglo-Americans, then it is equally necessary to recognize that the continued rule of Ahmadinejad signals the continued domination by the Entente imperialists ... and supporting either faction, even critically, means siding with one imperialist cartel over another.

Your use of "domination" is utterly unjustified due to the reasons I raised above. It is important to pinpoint the actual dynamic between those countries and Iran, not blindly equate one relationship to countless others.


This, of course, all dependent on conceding to the belief that: a) those in the streets of Iran are all supporters of Mousavi and followers of his movement, and b) that Mousavi is working for Washington. If one or both of these statements is false, however, then it's necessary for a fundamental re-think on the part of the "anti-imperialists", lest they continue to run the risk of being painted as stooges of the "other imperialism".

Strawman arguments. The protests may include many who are not supporters of Mousavi, but this does not change the leadership of the demonstrations, and it certainly does not change the overriding demands of the protestors. When they are calling for an election to be annulled, an election in which the main challenger is to the right of the supposed winner, you can hardly call this revolutionary. In fact, it would be irresponsible and anti-materialist to do so.

[MilitantWorker]

can we expect the working class of Palestine to make any significant steps toward eliminating capital and class when they are being massacred by Zionists every day?

Palestinians are not being massacred by nameless, faceless "Zionists." Individual Israelis are not going into the camps and going on a Columbine like killing spree. Palestinians are being killed by the Israeli Defense Forces. The Israeli Defense Forces are part of the state apparatus. The state apparatus is a means for the bourgeoisie to manage its affairs. And the state itself is no doubt capitalist. Jewish capitalist. Christian capitalist. Islamic capitalist...what do they have in common? they are all capitalists!

Therefore, to me, what you are saying is, "can we expect the palestinian working class to start eliminating capital and class when they are being massacred by Capitalists every day?" The answer is obviously, yes.


We learn from Marx that class struggle takes on a "national character", that the proletariat must "constitute itself the nation"

This is a load of bullshit. I hate to be vulgar but you manipulated his words for your argument. Where is this quote taken from? The Manifesto? Critique of the Gotha program? I'd like to read it for myself. And not the PSL translation. I've heard this quote before, and to me it means something very different. Plus who really cares about this exact quote. Marxism has outgrown Marx. He's not the one and only god ordained philosopher of the movement.


the whole point of national liberation is that it enables the workers to achieve revolution

No, it pits workers of one country, ethnicity, or whatever else defines a peoples right to "self-determination" (scary, fascist language, it could mean anything!) against the workers of another. The whole point of the proletariat gaining a revolutionary perspective is that it enables workers to achieve revolution. National liberation is a distraction from this task, if nothing else.


Where and whenever socialism springs up, the capitalists will attempt to isolate it, so you can't really use that as an argument against socialism in one country.

This is like saying "If I have a tumor, doctors will try and remove it. Therefore I should ignore the tumor."

Anyways, the comrades are right. Let's not get this thread off topic. I have started a new thread here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-liberation-and-t111683/index.html

[Martin Blank]

Let's not ignore history. Ever since the Suez Canal conflict in 1956, Washington has consistently called the shots in the imperialist sphere. Not only Britain, but France and other imperialist powers have been under the beck and call of the American bourgeoisie. Sure, the Washington-London imperialists aren't the only imperialists in the world, but their influence over France and Germany is not to be underestimated.

Yes, let's not ignore history. That includes recent history, which has seen the power of American imperialism erode dramatically since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the European Union. In the intervening years, the tensions and rivalries between continental Europe and the United States have grown. Much of the rivalry between the imperialist cartels has been played out on the economic battlefield, with the U.S. losing more and more of its economic power. This is one of the reasons it has resorted increasingly to the use of its military might; it's the one area where Washington continues to hold dominance. But when it comes to the "battle of the bottomless bank accounts", Washington and Wall Street are losing.

And now that we've done recent history, let me walk you through a little-known but rather relevant element of 20th century history that might shed a little light on why I don't put a lot of stock in the apparent close relationships between the U.S., France and Germany:...

In October 1913, representatives from Germany, Russia, Britain, Holland, Austria-Hungary, Spain, Portugal and Sweden gathered in Leipzig for the dedication of the Monument to the Battle of the Nations. The monument commemorated the Battle of Leipzig (also known as the Battle of the Nations), when the aforementioned countries banded together to defeat the forces of Napoleon. At that meeting, the representatives of the Grand Sixth Coalition stood in the center of the great, hulking monument and pledged to preserve another 100 years of peace in Europe. Britain, in particular, stressed the importance of European peace, and thought it could hold it together, given that King George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II were all family (talk about "influence"!).

Less than one year later, the First World War began.

My point: Alliances between imperialist powers come and go. The alliance that defeated the Axis in the Second World War and faced down the Soviet Union afterward has come and gone, just as the alliance that defeated Napoleon Bonaparte a century before came and went.


There is one important point you are missing: the Iranian state has, in its dealings with the capitalist countries you've mentioned, been able to operate independently, on its own terms. Neither France nor Germany nor Japan nor Brazil nor India have the means or the ambition to force Iran into submission. The US, as we all know, has tried and is trying to do exactly that. The quintessential imperialist arm-wrestling we see employed by the American bourgeoisie in every part of the world cannot, at present, be utilized by the ascendant imperialists of such countries.

Nonsense. If the imperialist investors in Iran's oil and natural gas industries were to withdraw their support, Iran would only be able to pump out, at best, about one-fourth of what they are producing now. They would not have the credit or hard currency to continue the modernizing of their petroleum industry or maintain the natural gas pipelines criss-crossing their country. Without the economic assistance Iran is receiving from the "other imperialists", their economy would collapse in a matter of days.


In addition, remember that the American bourgeoisie does, still, call most of the shots in the imperialist camp. Are American troops being deployed to imperialist wars started by Germany or Japan? No, it's the other way around, and that's certainly no coincidence.

That may be because neither Germany nor Japan has had a need to start a war recently. Unlike the U.S., they have been able to increase their share of the world's resources and productive capacity -- i.e., they have been able to do some relatively minor re-division of the world in their favor -- through economic means.


Your use of "domination" is utterly unjustified due to the reasons I raised above. It is important to pinpoint the actual dynamic between those countries and Iran, not blindly equate one relationship to countless others.

If you want to pinpoint those dynamics, you have to open your eyes and see them, not rely on analyses that are older than you are.


Strawman arguments. The protests may include many who are not supporters of Mousavi, but this does not change the leadership of the demonstrations, and it certainly does not change the overriding demands of the protestors. When they are calling for an election to be annulled, an election in which the main challenger is to the right of the supposed winner, you can hardly call this revolutionary. In fact, it would be irresponsible and anti-materialist to do so.

Honestly, I think the only people arguing that the protesters in Iran are led by Mousavi are you alleged "anti-imperialists". Even Mousavi's organization doesn't claim to be leading the protests! And the protesters themselves talk more about how they are leading him, not the other way around. And now I'm seeing many of those same protesters taking a view that the protests will continue with or without Mousavi and his "green" organization. That hardly sounds like a movement beholden to him. In fact, it sounds like exactly what needs to happen.

[Agrippa]

Let's not ignore history. Ever since the Suez Canal conflict in 1956, Washington has consistently called the shots in the imperialist sphere. Not only Britain, but France and other imperialist powers have been under the beck and call of the American bourgeoisie.

Well, it's not 1956 any more, let's just leave it at that.

[Martin Blank]

This is a load of bullshit. I hate to be vulgar but you manipulated his words for your argument. Where is this quote taken from? The Manifesto? Critique of the Gotha program? I'd like to read it for myself. And not the PSL translation. I've heard this quote before, and to me it means something very different. Plus who really cares about this exact quote. Marxism has outgrown Marx. He's not the one and only god ordained philosopher of the movement.

The quote is from the standard English-language edition of the Communist Manifesto:


The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

And don't apologize for being vulgar when dealing with such a vulgarization of Marx.

[manic expression]

Well, it's not 1956 any more, let's just leave it at that.

No, it isn't, but 1956 was a turning point in modern history: the Great Powers were now subservient to the Superpowers, especially the US. Ever since then, neither Britain nor France (nor Germany, for that matter) have been able to push their agendas independent of the US. The Suez Canal conflict was and remains a watershed event in the dynamics of imperialism, there is no denying this. Again, when was the last time American troops were deployed to a war Germany started? What about France? Japan? Exactly. It might not be 1956, but the power dynamic has not changed.

I'll deal with some other posts later.

[Martin Blank]

Are American troops being deployed to imperialist wars started by Germany or Japan?


Again, when was the last time American troops were deployed to a war Germany started? What about France? Japan?

Do they give special classes in demagogy along with PSL membership?

(And, for the record, the last time American troops were deployed to a war France started was in the 1960s ... to Vietnam. That didn't go too well, as I recall.)

[Agrippa]

No, it isn't, but 1956 was a turning point in modern history

So was the collapse of the Berlin Wall....:rolleyes:


the Great Powers were now subservient to the Superpowers, especially the US.

And this is no longer true. The EU, China, Brazil, and India are now Superpowers of their own.


Ever since then, neither Britain nor France (nor Germany, for that matter) have been able to push their agendas independent of the US.

Their agendas just haven't been contrary enough to those of the US for it to matter yet.

Also, what are you talking about? Was the US able to force France and Germany to help during the invasion of Iraq? The closest thing they could do was rename french fries. Major act of US imperialist sway, there....


The Suez Canal conflict was and remains a watershed event in the dynamics of imperialism

So everyone is going to start trading in dollars again instead of Euros because of the Suez Canal? I mean, Ron Paul would be delighted....


Again, when was the last time American troops were deployed to a war Germany started? What about France? Japan?

This has already been explained. It is not yet within the interests of any of those imperialist powers to start a war. If they did, the US probably would help, unless things change drastically in the mean-time.


Exactly. It might not be 1956, but the power dynamic has not changed.

Yes it has. The Euro is now more powerful than the dollar, and the PRC leads the way in terms of new forms of industrialization and modernization. The heaviest imperial occupation occurring in the globe right now, in terms of ratio of citizens to occupying forces, is Tibet. The US bourgeoisie is yesterday's news. What's the point of clinging emotionally to to a dying political hegemony. Are you sad that your enemy is dying? Don't worry, there will be plenty of new enemies to fight....

[manic expression]

Duplicate

[manic expression]

Do they give special classes in demagogy along with PSL membership?

No, but your party's tap-dancing classes must be great.


(And, for the record, the last time American troops were deployed to a war France started was in the 1960s ... to Vietnam. That didn't go too well, as I recall.)

French colonialism had already been broken in Vietnam at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The American imperialists jumped at the opportunity to subjugate the Vietnamese themselves after the French defeat.

But thanks for playing, professor. I'll get to your other post later, but for now, I'll turn to your pseudo-anarchist cheerleader.


And this is no longer true. The EU, China, Brazil, and India are now Superpowers of their own.

And the bourgeoisie's of India, Brazil or the EU last set the imperialist agenda when? Where is the imperialist aggression of Brazil? Of India? Their bourgeoisie's have not the capacity for the forcible aquisition of markets, a cornerstone of imperialism. Who are they dictating terms to? Your analysis is completely fallacious.


Their agendas just haven't been contrary enough to those of the US for it to matter yet.

Of course their agendas conflict. The French ruling class scoffed at the invasion of Iraq but was powerless to actually do anything about it. In a post YOU thanked, Miles illustrated the European capitalist influence in Iran, something the US has been denied for 30 years.


Also, what are you talking about? Was the US able to force France and Germany to help during the invasion of Iraq? The closest thing they could do was rename french fries. Major act of US imperialist sway, there....

German troops were deployed to the Balkans and to Afghanistan.


So everyone is going to start trading in dollars again instead of Euros because of the Suez Canal? I mean, Ron Paul would be delighted....

Go back and read my post again, you obviously didn't comprehend it. Thanks.


Yes it has. The Euro is now more powerful than the dollar, and the PRC leads the way in terms of new forms of industrialization and modernization. The heaviest imperial occupation occurring in the globe right now, in terms of ratio of citizens to occupying forces, is Tibet. The US bourgeoisie is yesterday's news. What's the point of clinging emotionally to to a dying political hegemony. Are you sad that your enemy is dying? Don't worry, there will be plenty of new enemies to fight....

The Euro is more powerful than the Dollar, but American imperialism is far more active and pervasive than any other capitalist nation on earth. You might want to tell Iraqis or Palestinians or Saudis or Afghanis or most other countries facing American imperialist aggression that "the US bourgeoisie is yesterday's news", you'll get laughed back to your armchair. If you actually believe such a silly position, that is quite comical.

Your inclusion of the PRC just underlines your obliviousness to the issues at hand. Tibet has been part of China for centuries, far longer than Texas or California has been part of the United States. Tibetans are one of many minority nationalities in the PRC, and they aren't even the biggest IIRC. On top of that, Tibet is given a great deal of autonomy within the PRC; the biggest complaints against them from your "Free Tibet" crowd is that monks aren't treated like royalty and that royalty isn't ruling the country. Stop buying the Dalai Lama's BS and get real.

[manic expression]

Yes, let's not ignore history. That includes recent history, which has seen the power of American imperialism erode dramatically since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the European Union. In the intervening years, the tensions and rivalries between continental Europe and the United States have grown. Much of the rivalry between the imperialist cartels has been played out on the economic battlefield, with the U.S. losing more and more of its economic power. This is one of the reasons it has resorted increasingly to the use of its military might; it's the one area where Washington continues to hold dominance. But when it comes to the "battle of the bottomless bank accounts", Washington and Wall Street are losing.

We all know the American bourgeoisie is in crisis. However, the capitalists of Germany, for instance, are intricately intertwined with the fate of American markets: I was in Germany when the housing bubble crashed and German businesses got the crap kicked out of them. Many of the countries you mentioned are very much dependent on the health of American business. More to the point, American imperialism still holds great sway through many avenues, and I think it's convenient that you're trying to rationalize this away at this juncture.


And now that we've done recent history, let me walk you through a little-known but rather relevant element of 20th century history that might shed a little light on why I don't put a lot of stock in the apparent close relationships between the U.S., France and Germany:...
My point: Alliances between imperialist powers come and go. The alliance that defeated the Axis in the Second World War and faced down the Soviet Union afterward has come and gone, just as the alliance that defeated Napoleon Bonaparte a century before came and went.The close relationships of imperialists don't come from nice treatment, they come from force and convenience. I never said otherwise, and that's all you've alluded to, making this point of yours fully irrelevant. Congratulations.


Nonsense. If the imperialist investors in Iran's oil and natural gas industries were to withdraw their support, Iran would only be able to pump out, at best, about one-fourth of what they are producing now. They would not have the credit or hard currency to continue the modernizing of their petroleum industry or maintain the natural gas pipelines criss-crossing their country. Without the economic assistance Iran is receiving from the "other imperialists", their economy would collapse in a matter of days.That does not change the fact that Iran is not subjugated, that it is determining its own path. In fact, it suggests just that: Iran chose the countries which would invest in its resources, not the other way around. This is something made possible by Iran's opposition to imperialist belligerence.

You are trying to put forth the equation that if a country has important foreign investment, it is exploited by imperialism. If this is the case, then the United States is being exploited by imperialism, for if Saudi Arabian investors pulled their capital out of the US economy, the result would be financial chaos.


That may be because neither Germany nor Japan has had a need to start a war recently. Unlike the U.S., they have been able to increase their share of the world's resources and productive capacity -- i.e., they have been able to do some relatively minor re-division of the world in their favor -- through economic means.Now you're reaching. Imperialist wars are hardly wars of pure necessity, they are wars of profit, and the German and Japanese capitalists would launch wars of profit if they could before you could say "Non-Doctrinaire Communist". It's not that the German or Japanese capitalists haven't needed to launch wars, it's that they have not the independence to do so. You're asking us to believe the German and Japanese capitalists are nicer or better businessmen than the American bourgeoisie, which is a laughable and anti-materialist concept.


If you want to pinpoint those dynamics, you have to open your eyes and see them, not rely on analyses that are older than you are.This coming from the poster that brought up the Battle of Leipzig to make an utterly tangential argument.


Honestly, I think the only people arguing that the protesters in Iran are led by Mousavi are you alleged "anti-imperialists". Even Mousavi's organization doesn't claim to be leading the protests! And the protesters themselves talk more about how they are leading him, not the other way around. And now I'm seeing many of those same protesters taking a view that the protests will continue with or without Mousavi and his "green" organization. That hardly sounds like a movement beholden to him. In fact, it sounds like exactly what needs to happen.Right. What were the demands of the demonstrations again? Who are the power brokers behind them within the Islamic Republic? What's the whole point to the protests? Right. More wishful thinking from leftists who desperately want to believe that any unrest will magically turn into a revolutionary movement. On a related note, how's that Orange Revolution coming?

[Agrippa]

And the bourgeoisie's of India, Brazil or the EU last set the imperialist agenda when? [...] Their bourgeoisie's have not the capacity for the forcible aquisition of markets, a cornerstone of imperialism.

Your definition of "imperialism" is incoherent.


Of course their agendas conflict. The French ruling class scoffed at the invasion of Iraq but was powerless to actually do anything about it.

And if the EU decided to invade a two-bit client-state like Iraq, it would be difficult for the US to stop it either. (That's assuming France wanted to stop the Iraq invasion. The French may have wanted the US to make a strategic blunder) It's obvious from how the events played out that the US neo-conservative bourgeoisie were the ones that were "powerless" in the situation



German troops were deployed to the Balkans and to Afghanistan.

And is that for or against the interests of the German bourgeoisie? It doesn't seem like the US imperialists are forcing the Germans to act against their interests...


Go back and read my post again, you obviously didn't comprehend it. Thanks.

I admit it's incomprehensible, but I don't think my powers of comprehension are at fault.


The Euro is more powerful than the Dollar, but American imperialism is far more active and pervasive than any other capitalist nation on earth.

How can that even be the case if the international bourgeoisie doesn't even take American currency seriously?


You might want to tell Iraqis or Palestinians or Saudis or Afghanis or most other countries facing American imperialist aggression that "the US bourgeoisie is yesterday's news"

It's yesterday's news in the long-term, geo-political sense. To take your argument to the ridiculous extreme, I could argue that since the Castillians still nationally oppress the Basque, that the Spanish empire is still as powerful today as it was in 1500. Then if anyone argues with me, I could claim they were being insensitive to the plight of the Basque....

Obama's currently losing the war in Afghanistan-Pakistan to the Islamists. The US imperialists have already lost the battle in Iraq. In Palestine, every day the US is forced to distance itself further and further from the right-wing extremist leadership of the Israeli client state. If the US imperialists still call the shots, why is Obama acting against his own interests by constantly calling for a neo-colonial Palestinian state?



Tibet has been part of China for centuries, far longer than Texas or California has been part of the United States.

Can you provide any proof that Tibetans have ever historically considered themselves Chinese? The fact that you use the imperialist conquest of Texas and California as a justification is pretty tellling...


Tibet is given a great deal of autonomy within the PRC

In a country of only five million, there are about half a million to a million PRC police, soldiers, and spies, the vast majority of them ethnic Chinese. (Oh, I forget, Tibetans are ethnic Chinese, just like Basques are Spanards and Mohawks are Canadians)


the biggest complaints against them from your "Free Tibet" crowd is that monks aren't treated like royalty and that royalty isn't ruling the country.

"My" Free Tibet crowd? Oh my....


Stop buying the Dalai Lama's BS and get real.

Fuck the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama essentially supports the prolonged military occupation of Tibet by the PRC. He can go to hell....

[Agrippa]

We all know the American bourgeoisie is in crisis. However, the capitalists of Germany, for instance, are intricately intertwined with the fate of American markets

And the capitalists in India are intricately intertwined with the fate of African markets. Does that mean that "African imperialists" call the shot when it comes to Indian politics? No, it just means we live under the regime of a multi-national ruling class....


I was in Germany when the housing bubble crashed and German businesses got the crap kicked out of them.Yeah, but US credibility and prominance was mostly in the toilet before the housing bubble crashed....


Many of the countries you mentioned are very much dependent on the health of American business.And American businesses aren't dependent on the health of the Chinese economy?


More to the point, American imperialism still holds great sway through many avenuesEnglish imperialism still holds sway in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Are you going to argue that the Victorian empire never declined either?


That does not change the fact that Iran is not subjugated, that it is determining its own path.Notice how willing you are to revert to a capitalist mentality, equating the rulership of Iran with the Iranian people. The US bourgeoisie also "determin[es] its own path". I guess Americans aren't subjugated either...what am I supposed to do, pat the Iranian bourgeoisie for "determining its own path" by continuing to monopolize the means of production, develop its security infastructure, cultivating eco-cidal technology such as nuclear war, etc.?


Iran chose the countries which would invest in its resources, not the other way around. This is something made possible by Iran's opposition to imperialist belligerence.But Iran is an imperialist state. Why should we care if imperialists stand up to the "beligerance" of other imperialists?


You are trying to put forth the equation that if a country has important foreign investment, it is exploited by imperialism.The only ones being "exploited" are the workers and the eco-system. Why should I give a shit if any faction of the bourgeoisie is "exploited"? Why sholuld I care if Iran is "exploited" by neo-liberal capitalists instead of protectionist, Islamic right-populist capitalists? I don't give a shit, it's all the same B.S. to me.


If this is the case, then the United States is being exploited by imperialism, for if Saudi Arabian investors pulled their capital out of the US economy, the result would be financial chaos.Exactly. Hence the total incoherence of your definition of the term "imperialism".


Imperialist wars are hardly wars of pure necessity, they are wars of profitSo that means that all wars are profitable and it is always profitable to go to war? I guess the US should just invade Canada, then...


and the German and Japanese capitalists would launch wars of profit if they could before you could say "Non-Doctrinaire Communist".No they wouldn't. It'd be totally against their interests. If Japan launched a "war of profit" anywhere, there would be a massive shit-storm of a popular backlash all throughout Eastern Asia, and this administrators of this message board would need to create another temporary thread to discuss the street-fighting that would be occuring in China, Korea, Southeast Asia, the Philipines, Indonesia, Mongolia, Siberia, Hokkaido, Ryukyu, etc.




They have as much independence to do so as any other imperialist power. If the Japanese or Germans wanted to, they could really fuck shit up, but why would they want to destabilize the geo-political climate?

You're acting as if the US remains totally unhampered by and independent of international opinion, which is obvious bolognia.


You're asking us to believe the German and Japanese capitalists are nicer or better businessmen than the American bourgeoisieNot nicer, just smarter. How is it "anti-materialist" to suggest that some capitalists are better at what they do than others? Is anything that questions your delusional fantasies about an omnipotent Yankee imperialism also "anti-materialist"?

However, you ask us time and time again to believe that the Chinese and Iranian capitalists are nicer businessmen than the American bourgeoisie.


What were the demands of the demonstrations again?How can a spontanious mass-uprising be said to have homogenous "demands"? It is very apparent that your perception of the issue is skewed

[qote]Who are the power brokers behind them within the Islamic Republic?

Who were the power brokers behind the anti-war movement during the height of the Iraq War? The Democratic Party, the big foundations, 501(c)(3)s, liberal Christian mega-churches, and other NGOs. (and their lackies in the RCP, ISO, and WWP, of course) All mass-movements have their capitalist parasites...I guess we should support the counter-insurrectionary efforts of the Iranian national-security establishment on those grounds.


What's the whole point to the protests? Right. More wishful thinking from leftists who desperately want to believe that any unrest will magically turn into a revolutionary movement.Leftists do that all the time and it's annoying, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that even if there was a full-blown "revolutionary movement", whatever that means, in Iran, you wouldn't support it, because you've been indoctrinated into a quasi-Maoist, protectionist, anti-American (as opposed to anti-capitalist) ideology that teaches you to support a Bonapartist regime such as Iran against mostly-imagined forces "imperialist aggression", while real Maoists are fighting Iranian police in the street...

[manic expression]

Your definition of "imperialism" is incoherent.

That wasn't a definition, it was a commentary on the status of the capitalists of Brazil and India and other nations.


And if the EU decided to invade a two-bit client-state like Iraq, it would be difficult for the US to stop it either.

But they didn't, and they won't in the near future. They have not the ability to do so, neither militarily nor geopolitically. That's the point here.


(That's assuming France wanted to stop the Iraq invasion. The French may have wanted the US to make a strategic blunder) It's obvious from how the events played out that the US neo-conservative bourgeoisie were the ones that were "powerless" in the situation

The US bourgeoisie was the group that got the invasion it wanted. Arrogant? Yes, as always. Powerless? Not at all.


And is that for or against the interests of the German bourgeoisie? It doesn't seem like the US imperialists are forcing the Germans to act against their interests...

Please, the German rulers were clearly concerned with showing support for the American imperialists. It was "in their interests" because they didn't want the imperialist country they were dependent on, the US, to question them.


I admit it's incomprehensible, but I don't think my powers of comprehension are at fault.

Give it another shot.


How can that even be the case if the international bourgeoisie doesn't even take American currency seriously?

They take it seriously, it's just falling as of late. The Pound is getting knocked around, too, that doesn't mean no one takes it seriously. Just because a market is in crisis doesn't mean it's suddenly irrelevant or powerless, such a conclusion is rash and absurd.


It's yesterday's news in the long-term, geo-political sense. To take your argument to the ridiculous extreme, I could argue that since the Castillians still nationally oppress the Basque, that the Spanish empire is still as powerful today as it was in 1500. Then if anyone argues with me, I could claim they were being insensitive to the plight of the Basque....

Oh, silly me, I didn't get that you were writing from 2400. :rolleyes:

Deal with today.


Obama's currently losing the war in Afghanistan-Pakistan to the Islamists. The US imperialists have already lost the battle in Iraq. In Palestine, every day the US is forced to distance itself further and further from the right-wing extremist leadership of the Israeli client state. If the US imperialists still call the shots, why is Obama acting against his own interests by constantly calling for a neo-colonial Palestinian state?

It's more complicated than that, to be sure. To deal with the bigger picture, though, the US is still calling the shots in one important way: in which of these issues do other imperialists have a decisive influence? Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan: all situations in which the US is the overriding imperialist power in play. Even in Pakistan, India's influence cannot come close to matching that of the US. This just underlines the threat of American imperialism, and what it means for the people of Iran.


Can you provide any proof that Tibetans have ever historically considered themselves Chinese? The fact that you use the imperialist conquest of Texas and California as a justification is pretty tellling...

They don't consider themselves Han Chinese, because they aren't. They're Tibetan, just like the Zhuang are Zhuang.

http://zt.tibet.cn/tibetzt/question_e/1/002.htm

So you think people from California are all, without question, subjects of the Mexican state? Just as importantly, do you think Saarland or Bavaria shouldn't be considered part of Germany? How about the entire country of Italy and every one of its regions? I'm just asking for some consistency here, as all of those states and respective countries, IIRC, were brought together AFTER Tibet was incorporated within the borders of China.


In a country of only five million, there are about half a million to a million PRC police, soldiers, and spies, the vast majority of them ethnic Chinese. (Oh, I forget, Tibetans are ethnic Chinese, just like Basques are Spanards and Mohawks are Canadians)

It's a border region. A war was fought there a few decades ago. What do you expect? Should the PRC just unilaterally empty one of its most important borders of all military assets?

And as I explained, Tibetans are only one of the many (many) non-Han nationalities in the PRC. The Uighurs, Hmong, Miao, Manchurians and others are some examples, and that's just off the top of my head. Their situation is not exceptional.

Does this have any connection to the PRC's supposed imperialism?


"My" Free Tibet crowd? Oh my....


Fuck the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama essentially supports the prolonged military occupation of Tibet by the PRC. He can go to hell....

Good, now it's time to curse his camp's ideas to hell, too, because they bear quite a resemblance to what you've been saying above.

[manic expression]

And

That wasn't addressed to you. Don't expect me to respond if you jump in like that, you and I already have a debate going.

[Agrippa]

That wasn't a definition, it was a commentary on the status of the capitalists of Brazil and India and other nations.

My point is that your definition of "imperialism" (which is contrary to Lenin's, I might add) is basically so overly-specific that the only state that can qualify is the USA. If any imperialist power doesn't resemble the USA in any way, you dismiss it as not-imperialist or less imperialist. It's obvious that you're a single-issue "anti-imperialist" that only cares about the imperial power that personally oppresses you. This is the opposite of international communism, it's counter-insurgent national chauvinism.


They have not the ability to do so, neither militarily nor geopolitically.The EU has a massive military infrastructure and immense geopolitical influence. They're just not stupid enough to waste billions of dollars on aircraft carriers and state-of-the-art jet-fighters they know they won't need....


The US bourgeoisie was the group that got the invasion it wanted.So the sole determining factor in deciding who the supreme imperialist power is, is who can get away with invading and overthrowing a second-rate imperial subject without provoking WWIII? I guess Sri Lanka is also the supreme global imperialist power.

The US couldn't stop the Russians from invading Georgia. Does that mean the US is less powerful than the Russian federation?


Powerless? Not at all.No one is arguing that the US is powerless. We're arguing that the world is different than it was in 1900 or 1950, as strange as that may sound.


Please, the German rulers were clearly concerned with showing support for the American imperialists. It was "in their interests" because they didn't want the imperialist country they were dependent on, the US, to question them.Yeah, the US is going to put sanctions on Deutschland for refusing to help them invade fucking Bosnia. :laugh:


Give it another shot.What would be gained?


The Pound is getting knocked around, tooSeriously, that's your argument? How is comparing the US to the UK lending credence to the idea that the US isn't a declining imperial power?


Oh, silly me, I didn't get that you were writing from 2400. :rolleyes:It didn't take 400 years for the Spanish empire to collapse in on itself. The bigger they are, the harder they fall


the US is still calling the shots in one important wayIf you consider getting your ass whooped on by Islamic fundamentalists to be "calling the shots", sure....


in which of these issues do other imperialists have a decisive influence? Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, PakistanUhh...all of them


all situations in which the US is the overriding imperialist power in play. Even in Pakistan, India's influence cannot come close to matching that of the US.Not yet maybe, but get back to me in twenty years on that.


So you think people from California are all, without question, subjects of the Mexican state?Someone's ethnic identity is not determined by whatever state they are the subject of. Do you subscribe to the belief that New Afrikans, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, American Indians, Hawaiians, etc. are all just part of this "great melting pot" of America rather than individual, distinct nationalities with their own national liberation struggles?


Just as importantly, do you think Saarland or Bavaria shouldn't be considered part of Germany?If you're asking as to whether or not I believe the borders of the German state accurately reflect traditional ethnic divisions, the answer is obviously no.

If you're asking as to whether or not I would support some sort of theoretical Leftist Bavarian or Saar national liberation movement, the answer is yes.

It's worth pointed out that at this point Bavarians and Saars have been almost-totally integrated into a "German" cultural identity. The same cannot be said of Tibet, where there have constant riots against Chinese occupation since the 50s. When in the last century were there anti-Prussian race-riots in Bavaria?


How about the entire country of Italy and every one of its regions?Again, like Germany, Italy is a modern capitalist nation-state founded on the imperial subjugation of many diverse ethnic groups. It's laughable to see a so-called communist defending the PRC by comparing it to Italy and Germany. Concepts like "Italy", "Germany", and "China" need to die totally before humanity is truly free.


I'm just asking for some consistency here, as all of those states and respective countries, IIRC, were brought together AFTER Tibet was incorporated within the borders of China.No. You know absolutely nothing about Tibetan history.


It's a border region. A war was fought there a few decades ago. What do you expect? Should the PRC just unilaterally empty one of its most important borders of all military assets?Are you asking me to tell PRC imperialists what they should and should not do? How about I give the US imperialists some tips on urban counter-insurgency tactics afterwards?


And as I explained, Tibetans are only one of the many (many) non-Han nationalities in the PRC. The Uighurs, Hmong, Miao, Manchurians and others are some examples, and that's just off the top of my head. Their situation is not exceptional.All those ethnic groups are nationally oppressed. How does the fact that Tibetan oppression is not exceptional, but rather the norm, justify the PRC's behavior?

That's like me saying "Jack the Ripper is bad because he murdered Mary Ann Nichols", and you trying to defend Jack the Ripper by saying "Yeah, but he also murdered Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly!"

Seriously, what was the point of that grocery-list of ethnic groups in the PRC? Are you trying to show how much of a glorious, inclusive multicultural metling pot the PRC is, just like its big brother, the US? Or are you just bragging about how many colonial subjects your pet imperial power has?


Does this have any connection to the PRC's supposed imperialism?Yes, it does. You're not that dense.


Good, now it's time to curse his camp's ideas to hell, too, because they bear quite a resemblance to what you've been saying above.I have always rejected the Dalai Lama's camp, just as I have always rejected Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and Jesse Jackson's camp here in the US. I will never reject the universal right of all ethnic groups to self-determination and national liberation, and the armed exercise of that right. And I will never make an exception for national oppressors who call themselves "socialist" or "Marxist". I'd rather drink a 64-ounce Big Gulp, hold it in my bladder on an eight-hour overnight flight to London, head for Highgate Cemetary, and take a massive piss on Karl Marx's grave. For in doing so, I would be committing less of a disgrace against the great doctor's legacy, memory, and principles than you and your compatriots are currently committing.

[Martin Blank]

French colonialism had already been broken in Vietnam at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The American imperialists jumped at the opportunity to subjugate the Vietnamese themselves after the French defeat.

But thanks for playing, professor. I'll get to your other post later.

Son, if this is your knowledge of history, I can understand why you'd see me as a professor.

The U.S. had been in Vietnam since 1950 assisting the French and training the Vietnamese. In February 1955, French and U.S. officials met and agreed that when the French left in April 1956, as a result of the Geneva Accords, the U.S. would stay and continue the fight against Ho Chi Minh, increasing the size of its presence to make up for the withdrawing French forces. This was a mutual agreement between Paris and Washington, not a situation where the "American imperialists jumped at the opportunity to subjugate the Vietnamese themselves". Indeed, it wasn't until 1961 that the U.S. made any real commitment to Vietnam beyond the initial agreement (and the limitations agreed to by the French at Geneva).

[Martin Blank]

We all know the American bourgeoisie is in crisis. However, the capitalists of Germany, for instance, are intricately intertwined with the fate of American markets: I was in Germany when the housing bubble crashed and German businesses got the crap kicked out of them. Many of the countries you mentioned are very much dependent on the health of American business. More to the point, American imperialism still holds great sway through many avenues, and I think it's convenient that you're trying to rationalize this away at this juncture.

It's a world capitalist system. Of course the economic crisis here is going to have a major effect on the rest of the capitalist world, including its rivals. This was, in fact, one of the reasons why the German bourgeoisie backed Hitler in the 1930s: they were angered by the losses they suffered when the Great Depression swept across the world, and held British, French and American imperialism responsible; Hitler's suppression of the German workers' movement and plans for a forcible re-division of the world offered the German capitalists the opportunity to recoup the losses they had experienced as a result of the erosion of their economic power.

You may think I'm "rationalizing away" Washington's "sway" in the world, but I'm not. I actually worry about the day when it reaches the point where the U.S. can no longer intimidate the rest of the world, because that will mean that the next World War is on the horizon. What I am doing is recognizing that America's "sway" is eroding due to its faltering economic position, and that its rivals are taking full advantage of that around the world, including in Iran. Seriously, the U.S. cannot even enforce the sanctions it pushed through the UN among its own cartel partners, like Britain.


The close relationships of imperialists don't come from nice treatment, they come from force and convenience. I never said otherwise, and that's all you've alluded to, making this point of yours fully irrelevant. Congratulations.

Your whole point was to argue that, since the U.S. has "influence" over France and Germany, to the point where they are at Washington's "beck and call", they would not take advantage of American imperialism's abstaining from investment in Iran, and acquire new resources and productive power. My point was to say that those old alliances are no longer relevant to the world situation -- that new inter-imperialist alliances and rivalries are emerging, especially due to the faltering power of American imperialism.

If your point was not to challenge the view that inter-imperialist rivalries are growing between Europe and the U.S., and are being played out over Iran's resources, then what was your point? Did you have one? Or are you looking for reasons to maintain your apparent view that the United States constitutes some kind of "supra-imperialism" (which is implied in your distinction between Great Powers and Superpowers)?


That does not change the fact that Iran is not subjugated, that it is determining its own path. In fact, it suggests just that: Iran chose the countries which would invest in its resources, not the other way around. This is something made possible by Iran's opposition to imperialist belligerence.

Actually, Iran didn't choose which countries invest in their industries. In fact, Iran's offer was also made to American companies, but they were stopped by Washington (partially -- there's a loophole in the sanctions regime that allows overseas subsidiaries of American companies to invest). If the U.S. was to drop the sanctions tomorrow, American oil companies would be lined up around the block to invest in Iran, and the Iranians would really have no choice but to take the money, given their need for hard currency and credit.


You are trying to put forth the equation that if a country has important foreign investment, it is exploited by imperialism. If this is the case, then the United States is being exploited by imperialism, for if Saudi Arabian investors pulled their capital out of the US economy, the result would be financial chaos.

It's not just the investments, it's how much and where the profits go. The oil contracts with Iran return tens of billions in profits to the European and Asian capitalists that made the investments, and the multi-year contracts account for nearly two-thirds of the investment in infrastructure made in Iran's oil and natural gas industries.

On the other hand, Sa'udi investments in the U.S. only equal about $420 billion. Of that, only $4.4 billion is direct foreign investment. The remaining $315 billion is indirect investment in the stock market, personal bank holdings, government bonds and commercial paper. Any time these investments change, the profits go to Wall Street, not Sa'udi Arabia. In fact, if the Sa'udis were to attempt to withdraw all of their indirect investments from the U.S. economy, they would take a bath on the fees and penalties, and Wall Street would make a tidy sum.


Now you're reaching. Imperialist wars are hardly wars of pure necessity, they are wars of profit, and the German and Japanese capitalists would launch wars of profit if they could before you could say "Non-Doctrinaire Communist". It's not that the German or Japanese capitalists haven't needed to launch wars, it's that they have not the independence to do so.

Actually, they are wars for profit, not wars of profit. That is, they are launched when profit is to be gained from the adventure, not simply when the opportunity presents itself. No imperialist power, not even the U.S., launches a war unless the gains from doing so outweigh the amount of spending and losses they acquire doing it by enough to designate it as "profitable".

German and Japanese imperialism, which only began to regain such a status in the world system in the 1970s (for Germany, it really wasn't until 1990), there has been little need launch wars. The rise of Germany and Japan coincided with the beginning of the terminal decline of America's position in the world capitalist order. As the U.S. retreated in the wake of the collapse of Bretton Woods, Washington's rivals were there to scoop up the gains.

When the Soviet Union and the "people's democracies" collapsed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, countries like Germany were there to pick up resources and productive power, as well as markets in which to dump overproduced commodities. The carve-up of the Balkans, especially the creation of countries like Slovenia and Croatia, was the result of countries like Germany expanding their share of the world. (This actually goes back to your question about the U.S. continuing a war Germany began. American intervention in the Balkans, particularly Washington's attacks on Serbia, was such a case. The proxy wars in Bosnia throughout the 1990s were conflicts provoked by different imperialist rivals, ultimately including the U.S., seeking a slice of the pie.)


You're asking us to believe the German and Japanese capitalists are nicer or better businessmen than the American bourgeoisie, which is a laughable and anti-materialist concept.

Nicer, no. Better businessmen, yes. This is especially true for the Japanese, who formulated the "lean" model of production that has superseded the American "Ford-Taylor" model. That gave them a definite edge in production and acquisition of capital, which in turn allowed them to improve their ability to export credit and other forms of finance capital around the world.


This coming from the poster that brought up the Battle of Leipzig to make an utterly tangential argument.

If this was the best you could come up with as a response, you'd have done better to simply ignore the comment.


Right. What were the demands of the demonstrations again? Who are the power brokers behind them within the Islamic Republic? What's the whole point to the protests?

At this point, the protests are not about the election, or Mousavi, or Rafsinjani, or even Neda. They are about their right as Iranians to self-determination -- free from the interference of both imperialism and the Islamists. You have Iranians marching in the streets holding pictures of Mossadeg and Mousavi together with the caption, "We Won't Let It Happen Again!" Yes, you read that right: The protesters are comparing Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to the CIA. The strikes being held are not being organized by Mousavi or his organization. The protests are not under the control of the "green" faction; they can only follow where it's going.

Yeah, these Iranians sure want U.S. intervention and a puppet state. :rolleyes:


Right. More wishful thinking from leftists who desperately want to believe that any unrest will magically turn into a revolutionary movement.

As opposed to wishful thinking from leftists who see a tin-pot nationalist shake his fist at Washington and think he's magically turned into an "anti-imperialist"?


On a related note, how's that Orange Revolution coming?

Dunno. How's Osama bin Laden doing?

[Rawthentic]

Manic expression's arguments, as with all those who denounce the people of Iran and support the reactionary theocracy, are shown to be a mere house of cards - easily shattered.

[manic expression]

Son, if this is your knowledge of history, I can understand why you'd see me as a professor.

Kid, the only thing you have in common with most professors is a raging ego trip. That, and a complete irrelevance to class struggle.


The U.S. had been in Vietnam since 1950 assisting the French and training the Vietnamese. In February 1955, French and U.S. officials met and agreed that when the French left in April 1956, as a result of the Geneva Accords, the U.S. would stay and continue the fight against Ho Chi Minh, increasing the size of its presence to make up for the withdrawing French forces. This was a mutual agreement between Paris and Washington, not a situation where the "American imperialists jumped at the opportunity to subjugate the Vietnamese themselves". Indeed, it wasn't until 1961 that the U.S. made any real commitment to Vietnam beyond the initial agreement (and the limitations agreed to by the French at Geneva).

I see you've been attending your party's tap-dancing lessons quite religiously. The mutual agreement you mention happened after the decisive French defeat; the French simply had no way to enforce their will over the country any longer, and so characteristically, they handed the task over to whom? The most powerful, most influential imperialist power in the world, the US. None of that contradicts my statements, and actually your little wiki-lecture supports what I was saying in the first place: the US was the driving force in imperialism then, as it remains today. The US was more than happy to attempt to bring Vietnam into its own "sphere", whereas today European countries are compelled through pressure to send troops to US imperialism's misadventures throughout the world.

But keep ignoring facts, I'm sure your anarchist cheerleader will be doing gymnastics for your paper-thin arguments anyway.

[manic expression]

It's a world capitalist system. Of course the economic crisis here is going to have a major effect on the rest of the capitalist world, including its rivals.

Don't try to rationalize the facts away. The German capitalists are more than dependent upon the American bourgeoisie, and yet you're sitting here saying the former are eclipsing the latter. You're sitting here saying that the German capitalists constitute an imperialist force that rivals the American one, even when the German ruling class is tied fully to the health of the American market.

The point is that your entire premise is fully incorrect: the American imperialist machine remains the driving force for the capitalists of all countries. Your attempt to wish this away is beyond pathetic.


This was, in fact, one of the reasons why the German bourgeoisie backed Hitler in the 1930s: they were angered by the losses they suffered when the Great Depression swept across the world, and held British, French and American imperialism responsible; Hitler's suppression of the German workers' movement and plans for a forcible re-division of the world offered the German capitalists the opportunity to recoup the losses they had experienced as a result of the erosion of their economic power.Right, they held British and French and American imperialism responsible, since they were leading the imperialist camp at the time. Today, American imperialism is solely responsible for financial chaos, meaning you just proved my position.


You may think I'm "rationalizing away" Washington's "sway" in the world, but I'm not. I actually worry about the day when it reaches the point where the U.S. can no longer intimidate the rest of the world, because that will mean that the next World War is on the horizon. What I am doing is recognizing that America's "sway" is eroding due to its faltering economic position, and that its rivals are taking full advantage of that around the world, including in Iran. Seriously, the U.S. cannot even enforce the sanctions it pushed through the UN among its own cartel partners, like Britain.The contradictions in capitalism, as all Marxists know, inflict the most problems upon the strongest capitalists. This is why the US is faltering economically, because it's been extending its forces farther and farther. The US invaded TWO countries which border Iran, coerced many countries into sending troops to at least one of those countries and stands a menace to the Iranian people. Yes, I do think you are trying to rationalize away Washington's sway.


Your whole point was to argue that, since the U.S. has "influence" over France and Germany, to the point where they are at Washington's "beck and call", they would not take advantage of American imperialism's abstaining from investment in Iran, and acquire new resources and productive power. My point was to say that those old alliances are no longer relevant to the world situation -- that new inter-imperialist alliances and rivalries are emerging, especially due to the faltering power of American imperialism.I never argued that France and Germany would never try to capitalize upon the errors of the American bourgeoisie, I argued that they are, to a great extent, dependent upon the American ruling class and without the means of American imperialism. You have yet to address this fact.


If your point was not to challenge the view that inter-imperialist rivalries are growing between Europe and the U.S., and are being played out over Iran's resources, then what was your point? Did you have one?See previous answer(s).


Actually, Iran didn't choose which countries invest in their industries. In fact, Iran's offer was also made to American companies, but they were stopped by Washington (partially -- there's a loophole in the sanctions regime that allows overseas subsidiaries of American companies to invest). If the U.S. was to drop the sanctions tomorrow, American oil companies would be lined up around the block to invest in Iran, and the Iranians would really have no choice but to take the money, given their need for hard currency and credit.Why, do you think, the US hasn't dropped those sanctions? Obviously, there must be something in it for them if they're stopping oil companies from making profit there. You've left this question unanswered. The fact is that Iran's opposition to American political interests in the region has forced the American imperialists to place such sanctions upon Iran. The US doesn't sanction countries just because they feel like it, it's a calculated political maneuver in order to bully the people of Iran, and so far it hasn't worked.


It's not just the investments, it's how much and where the profits go. The oil contracts with Iran return tens of billions in profits to the European and Asian capitalists that made the investments, and the multi-year contracts account for nearly two-thirds of the investment in infrastructure made in Iran's oil and natural gas industries.

On the other hand, Sa'udi investments in the U.S. only equal about $420 billion. Of that, only $4.4 billion is direct foreign investment. The remaining $315 billion is indirect investment in the stock market, personal bank holdings, government bonds and commercial paper. Any time these investments change, the profits go to Wall Street, not Sa'udi Arabia. In fact, if the Sa'udis were to attempt to withdraw all of their indirect investments from the U.S. economy, they would take a bath on the fees and penalties, and Wall Street would make a tidy sum.The American turnout...was the latest signal that relations between the two countries have thawed since the strains of 9/11. But it was also an acknowledgment of a simple fact: like it or not, the United States is more dependent than ever on Saudi Arabia.

The bulk of their exports, about 60 percent, goes to Asia, with Japan and China now counting Saudi Arabia as their prime supplier. About 1.5 million barrels a day make it to the United States, about 15 percent of American imports - but Saudi oil executives make it a point, politically, to remain among the nation's top three suppliers, with Canada and Mexico.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/business/worldbusiness/06saudi.html?pagewanted=print


Actually, they are wars for profit, not wars of profit. That is, they are launched when profit is to be gained from the adventure, not simply when the opportunity presents itself. No imperialist power, not even the U.S., launches a war unless the gains from doing so outweigh the amount of spending and losses they acquire doing it by enough to designate it as "profitable".And since they are launched when only deemed "profitable", they are wars of profit.


German and Japanese imperialism, which only began to regain such a status in the world system in the 1970s (for Germany, it really wasn't until 1990), there has been little need launch wars. The rise of Germany and Japan coincided with the beginning of the terminal decline of America's position in the world capitalist order. As the U.S. retreated in the wake of the collapse of Bretton Woods, Washington's rivals were there to scoop up the gains.You're ignoring the real issue. If Japan or Germany had the means, do you deny that they would launch imperialist wars? They aren't doing so because they simply can't, not because they care more about Iraqi lives than American capitalists.


When the Soviet Union and the "people's democracies" collapsed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, countries like Germany were there to pick up resources and productive power, as well as markets in which to dump overproduced commodities. The carve-up of the Balkans, especially the creation of countries like Slovenia and Croatia, was the result of countries like Germany expanding their share of the world. (This actually goes back to your question about the U.S. continuing a war Germany began. American intervention in the Balkans, particularly Washington's attacks on Serbia, was such a case. The proxy wars in Bosnia throughout the 1990s were conflicts provoked by different imperialist rivals, ultimately including the U.S., seeking a slice of the pie.)And countries like Germany did so only with paramount cooperation with American businesses. That's why the German capitalists are still reeling from the American market crisis, they go as the Dow Jones goes.

The rest of your point doesn't contradict mine at all, as usual.


Nicer, no. Better businessmen, yes. This is especially true for the Japanese, who formulated the "lean" model of production that has superseded the American "Ford-Taylor" model. That gave them a definite edge in production and acquisition of capital, which in turn allowed them to improve their ability to export credit and other forms of finance capital around the world.You're still dodging the fact that Japanese capitalists would use military force if only they could. But they can't.


If this was the best you could come up with as a response, you'd have done better to simply ignore the comment.The truth can hurt.


At this point, the protests are not about the election, or Mousavi, or Rafsinjani, or even Neda. They are about their right as Iranians to self-determination -- free from the interference of both imperialism and the Islamists. You have Iranians marching in the streets holding pictures of Mossadeg and Mousavi together with the caption, "We Won't Let It Happen Again!" Yes, you read that right: The protesters are comparing Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to the CIA. The strikes being held are not being organized by Mousavi or his organization. The protests are not under the control of the "green" faction; they can only follow where it's going.

More wishful thinking with no real support. So they're comparing Mousavi to Mossadegh, you say? Of course they would, it's political opportunism at its finest. Mousavi's supporters (and they are his supporters, why else would they carry such placards) want to paint him as the answer to Iran's problems, because he's the entire reason for the demonstrations in the first place. They won't let it happen again, "it" being their man denied power, "their man" being Mousavi.

So, in the end, it is about Mousavi, and Rafsanjani is still the power broker behind the demonstrations.


As opposed to wishful thinking from leftists who see a tin-pot nationalist shake his fist at Washington and think he's magically turned into an "anti-imperialist"?No, no magic here, just a material analysis. The opposition to American imperialism represents an opposition to the most powerful imperialist force in the world, and as such, it represents increased self-determination and independence for the Iranian nation. American imperialists are getting frustrated, that's why they've been sure to applaud the demonstrations and find every reason why it's superb news. You, on the other hand, are still making a two-bit lecture about Japanese car companies and expecting it to mean something for the Iranian people.


Dunno. How's Osama bin Laden doing?Probably rooting for more instability in Iran, but who really cares?

[manic expression]

My point is that your definition of "imperialism" (which is contrary to Lenin's, I might add) is basically so overly-specific that the only state that can qualify is the USA. If any imperialist power doesn't resemble the USA in any way, you dismiss it as not-imperialist or less imperialist. It's obvious that you're a single-issue "anti-imperialist" that only cares about the imperial power that personally oppresses you. This is the opposite of international communism, it's counter-insurgent national chauvinism.

Of course I would call the US the most powerful imperialist country on earth, probably because it's the most powerful imperialist country on earth. Revolutionaries need to pinpoint the dynamics of capitalism in order to fight them, which in this case means recognizing the US bourgeoisie as the single greatest threat to the workers of all countries. That remains a fact, and your posturing as an "international communist" is only undercut by your own misled hatred for nationhood itself.


The EU has a massive military infrastructure and immense geopolitical influence. They're just not stupid enough to waste billions of dollars on aircraft carriers and state-of-the-art jet-fighters they know they won't need....Aircraft carriers are one of the central measures of a superpower. Aircraft carriers (and state-of-the-art jet-fighters) enable a military to make strikes on faraway locales without risking many lives. Aircraft carriers have been decisive in naval superiority since World War II. Aircraft carriers are not "stupid", they're imperialist tools: they allow imperialists to murder innocents around the world for profit.


So the sole determining factor in deciding who the supreme imperialist power is, is who can get away with invading and overthrowing a second-rate imperial subject without provoking WWIII? I guess Sri Lanka is also the supreme global imperialist power.Putting words in someone's mouth is equivalent to wishful thinking. The measure of the greatest imperialist threat is (among other things) geopolitical, military and economic clout, all of which the US still ranks as unparalleled. Does it have rivals? Sure, but at present it is the most imminent threat to the working class.


The US couldn't stop the Russians from invading Georgia. Does that mean the US is less powerful than the Russian federation?No, it means its bid to increase its power in the Caucuses didn't work. Just because the Shah fell doesn't mean Iran is a stronger imperialist power, it simply means the American imperialists didn't get their way.


No one is arguing that the US is powerless. We're arguing that the world is different than it was in 1900 or 1950, as strange as that may sound.Do explain HOW the power dynamics established by the Suez Canal conflict have been outdated, if you want to make an argument, of course.


Yeah, the US is going to put sanctions on Deutschland for refusing to help them invade fucking Bosnia. :laugh:Germany did help them invade Yugoslavia.


What would be gained?An understanding of a materialist analysis.


Seriously, that's your argument? How is comparing the US to the UK lending credence to the idea that the US isn't a declining imperial power?It means that ALL imperialists are in economic trouble, for the crisis is decidedly global. The Japanese capitalists are looking at real bad numbers, as are the German capitalists, as are other capitalist nations that are supposedly eclipsing American power today. It means that your position flies in the face of facts.


It didn't take 400 years for the Spanish empire to collapse in on itself. The bigger they are, the harder they fallSo you're saying the American navy just suffered a catastrophic defeat, rendering it toothless to enforce its control over a newly-found continent?

Empty platitudes don't help.


If you consider getting your ass whooped on by Islamic fundamentalists to be "calling the shots", sure....Go back and read my posts, because you would avoid making such absurd comments had you understood my arguments.


Uhh...all of themDoes Israel give a sh*t about what Japan says? No, it doesn't. Does Pakistan care about what Brazil has to say? No, it doesn't. Are the Iraqi people occupied by Indian troops? No, they aren't.

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about.


Not yet maybe, but get back to me in twenty years on that.I'm talking about today, as in NOW.

T-O-D-A-Y

That means not in twenty years.


Someone's ethnic identity is not determined by whatever state they are the subject of. Do you subscribe to the belief that New Afrikans, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, American Indians, Hawaiians, etc. are all just part of this "great melting pot" of America rather than individual, distinct nationalities with their own national liberation struggles?I just gave you many examples of non-Han nationalities in the PRC, which have a great deal of autonomy. The Zhuang are part of China, but they are Zhuang, not Han. To say they are less Chinese than Han Chinese would be insulting.

The difference between the PRC and the US is that the PRC recognizes its nationalities AS nationalities, not as obstacles to be marginalized or stripped of any identity. That's a fundamental difference between the US and the PRC, something you've done well to ignore.


If you're asking as to whether or not I believe the borders of the German state accurately reflect traditional ethnic divisions, the answer is obviously no.Are Bavarians or Hessians not German?


If you're asking as to whether or not I would support some sort of theoretical Leftist Bavarian or Saar national liberation movement, the answer is yes.Good.


It's worth pointed out that at this point Bavarians and Saars have been almost-totally integrated into a "German" cultural identity. The same cannot be said of Tibet, where there have constant riots against Chinese occupation since the 50s. When in the last century were there anti-Prussian race-riots in Bavaria?Last time I was in Berlin, I saw neither tracht nor Augustiner (much to my disappointment) nor Bavarian flags, and I didn't meet anyone who spoke Bavarian (and, failing that, the accent was quite different). You overestimate the homogeneity of Germany.

The riots in Tibet were led by reactionaries with a feudalist ideology, and the CIA was active in the region in the 1950's. The riots have not been constant, but that's beside the point. Tibetans are not being oppressed on the basis of nationality: the PRC brought much-needed progress and reform to the region, and Tibet is now better connected to the world because of it. In addition, they do have autonomy within the PRC.


Again, like Germany, Italy is a modern capitalist nation-state founded on the imperial subjugation of many diverse ethnic groups. It's laughable to see a so-called communist defending the PRC by comparing it to Italy and Germany. Concepts like "Italy", "Germany", and "China" need to die totally before humanity is truly free.I'm not asking you whether or not you like Italian politics or the Italian ruling class, I'm asking you whether or not it's legitimate that Sicilians and Milanese consider themselves "Italian".

Italy and Germany should not die, they should be transformed. But that is another subject.


No. You know absolutely nothing about Tibetan history.The Qing Dynasty. Tibet. 1652.

Before "Italy", before "Germany", before "California".


Are you asking me to tell PRC imperialists what they should and should not do? How about I give the US imperialists some tips on urban counter-insurgency tactics afterwards?How is the PRC imperialist?




You've been dodging the autonomoy given to those nations within the PRC. That "norm" is most certainly justified.

[QUOTE]Seriously, what was the point of that grocery-list of ethnic groups in the PRC? Are you trying to show how much of a glorious, inclusive multicultural metling pot the PRC is, just like its big brother, the US? Or are you just bragging about how many colonial subjects your pet imperial power has?Where is your manufactured indignation over the "oppression" of the Zhuang? What about the Manchurians? It's not even on your radar, because you fail to understand both the autonomy of nationalities within the PRC and the lack of nation-based oppression in that country. There's been a campaign of demonization of the PRC, led by the Dalai Lama and his imperialist backers, and you've bought into it hook, line and sinker.


Yes, it does. You're not that dense.If we were to imagine the PRC as imperialist. But then, of course, we'd have to imagine it.


I have always rejected the Dalai Lama's camp, just as I have always rejected Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and Jesse Jackson's camp here in the US. I will never reject the universal right of all ethnic groups to self-determination and national liberation, and the armed exercise of that right. And I will never make an exception for national oppressors who call themselves "socialist" or "Marxist". I'd rather drink a 64-ounce Big Gulp, hold it in my bladder on an eight-hour overnight flight to London, head for Highgate Cemetary, and take a massive piss on Karl Marx's grave. For in doing so, I would be committing less of a disgrace against the great doctor's legacy, memory, and principles than you and your compatriots are currently committing.If you embrace the right of self-determination, why are you making a purple-faced condemnation of a country that gives autonomy to its many nationalities?

And don't pretend to be a student of Marx when you have a circle-A in your signature. If you knew the first thing about the principles of communism (aka Marxism) you wouldn't be spewing unadulterated hatred for the CPC.

[Agrippa]

Revolutionaries need to pinpoint the dynamics of capitalism in order to fight them.Which you refuse to do by pretending like the US is still an unrivaled imperial power. Even during the height of its prominence, the US was still constantly under threat from major imperialist competitors such as Spain, Britian, Germany, and the Soviet Union. Now, even though the US is still #1, it is only by a very slim margin.

"the dynamics of capitalism", right now, in 2009, are not the same as "the dynamics of capitalism" in 1950. Germany, France, Benelux, and the UK are no longer lackies of the US, through their combined efforts they have formed an imperialist "super-power" that rivals the US. (Rivals the US not just in terms of scope, but also in terms of having entirely seperate and sometimes contradictory strategic and tactical interests) The Russian Federation, while not an economic super-power, is a military super-power that only barely lags behind the US, whereas the PRC (as I recall) has a significantly larger military than the US. Why you fail to "pinpoint" this is obvious, if you accepted it, the premises of most of your political positions would be turned upside down, including your stances on Iran and Tibet.


That remains a fact, and your posturing as an "international communist" is only undercut by your own misled hatred for nationhood itself.I only hate "nations" that were created to justify the existence of multi-national states (the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, China, India, virtually every African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American country, even Japan, since the "nation" of Japan includes the Yamato ethnic majority as well as indigenous, colonized ethnic minorities such as the Ainu, Ryukyuans, etc.)

"Nations" that actually reflect real, traditional ethnic identities, I have no problem with. Notice, for example, I made no criticism of the Apache nation.


Aircraft carriers are one of the central measures of a superpower. Aircraft carriers (and state-of-the-art jet-fighters) enable a military to make strikes on faraway locales without risking many lives. Aircraft carriers have been decisive in naval superiority since World War II. Aircraft carriers are not "stupid", they're imperialist tools: they allow imperialists to murder innocents around the world for profit.All of this is true, but the US takes it too far by sinking all of their military spending into pointless, state-of-the-art bombers and carriers that are never used, and mostly exist to show-boat, to the detriment of their ground forces. Obama, being the brilliant capitalist he is, has realized this, and is trying to change it, much to the dismay of the bull-headed, antiquated, right-wing capitalists


The measure of the greatest imperialist threat is (among other things) geopolitical, military and economic clout, all of which the US still ranks as unparalleled.The US still ranks #1, but it is certainly no lunger "unparalleled". Arguably, it was never "unparalleled".


Does it have rivals? Sure, but at present it is the most imminent threat to the working class.The working class is made up of individuals who are free to decide what the most imminent threat is. If I am a proletariat in Madagascar getting the shit kicked out of my by local police, "the most imminent threat" is the local police of whatever town in Madagascar I live in.

Seriously, do you expect all the Iranian anarchists and Maoists to book flights to the USA so they can riot here instead? Or do you expect them just to remain docile and servile to the Iranian bourgeoisie while they wait for American commies to overthrow the US?


No, it means its bid to increase its power in the Caucuses didn't work. Just because the Shah fell doesn't mean Iran is a stronger imperialist power, it simply means the American imperialists didn't get their way.But the point is that the US imperialists haven't "gotten their way" in a pretty long time....


Do explain HOW the power dynamics established by the Suez Canal conflict have been outdated, if you want to make an argument, of course.Uhh....the E fucking U?


Germany did help them invade Yugoslavia.I think Miles handled this one well, so I'll leave it at what she/he said.


An understanding of a materialist analysis.Which I can get from reading Marx and Engels, not your posts. Get off your high horse.


It means that ALL imperialists are in economic trouble, for the crisis is decidedly global. The Japanese capitalists are looking at real bad numbers, as are the German capitalists, as are other capitalist nations that are supposedly eclipsing American power today.This is irrelevant. All imperialists are in economic trouble but some know how to respond to the economic trouble better than others. (Eg: The resiliance of Toyotism in comparison to Fordism)


So you're saying the American navy just suffered a catastrophic defeat, rendering it toothless to enforce its control over a newly-found continent?
Go back and read my posts, because you would avoid making such absurd comments had you understood my arguments.I understand that your arguments ignore the reality of the situation, such as the real set-back that the US imperialists are facing in both Iraq and the Afghani-Pakistani border at the hands of right-wing Islamic insurgents. This is the latest in a series of military catastrophies suffered by the US since the loss of the Vietnam war.


Does Israel give a sh*t about what Japan says? At this point, the quasi-fascist regime in Israel doesn't seem to give a shit (real commies don't use asterisks!) about any international opinion, including the opinion of the president of the US. Hence why the prez is having to distance himself from Israel and suck up to the Muslim world.


Does Pakistan care about what Brazil has to say?No, but Pakistan cares about what China, India, Russia, and the EU have to say. And Columbia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, etc. certianly do care about what Brazil has to say.


Are the Iraqi people occupied by Indian troops? No, they aren't.Again, a good example of you chosing to define "imperialism" as "anything that fits the description of the US". Is the definition of "unparalleled imperialist superpower" now "anyone who happens to be doing a really shoddy job of trying to occupy Iraq"?


I'm talking about today, as in NOW.

T-O-D-A-Y

That means not in twenty years.Well, the events of today forecast the near future. If the US is on a steady decline, why should we suspend all acts of aggression against other capitalist forces under the pretense that the US is the "primary" threat?


I just gave you many examples of non-Han nationalities in the PRC, which have a great deal of autonomy.That's your opinion. The Western media loves to claim that Basques now have "a great deal of autonomy" from Spain, that hasn't stopped the Basques from rebelling, either. Whether the Zhuang, the Tibetans, or any other ethnic group, within the borders of China, or anywhere else, has a sufficient "deal" of autonomy, is for them to decide, not you. (Unless you happen to be Tibetan or Zhuang) ALL nations have a right to self-determination, as defined on their terms. Your particular brand of Maoist ideology tends to only believe in national self-determination for nations oppressed by the US and Europe. As a consequence, it is totally phoney internationalism that is utterly capitalist in its interior logic.


The Zhuang are part of China, but they are Zhuang, not Han. To say they are less Chinese than Han Chinese would be insulting.And what if I consider the term "Chinese" an insult? (As someone born within the borders of the US, I certainly get insulted when people refer to me as an "American", rather than a Celtic-German/Cherokee mutt that happens to live within the borders of the US) Have you ever talked to a Zhuang regarding her feelings on the issue, or are you just making an assumption based on your zero real-world experience with the issue?


The difference between the PRC and the US is that the PRC recognizes its nationalities AS nationalities, not as obstacles to be marginalized or stripped of any identity.I don't know if you live in the US or not, but the US has basically appropriated the PRC's approach to dealing with "minority" nationalities. Your understanding of the nuances of ethnic interactions in the US seems very poor, and stuck in the 1950s and 60s, which would be especially sad of you if you happened to live in the US.

If nationalities in the US were being "stripped of their identity", why would Obama claim to admire Malcolm X? Why would Sonia Sotomayor claim her experiences as a working-class Latina better prepare her for being a judge? Why would state-issued textbooks throughout teach children about bastardized, watered down versions of "Native American" and "African-American" culture? Why would millions of white yuppies get bamboozled by phoney "Native American shamans", both white and Indian, selling them a plastic, distorted version Indian spirituality? Why would there be holiday specials on TV glorifying Kwanzaa, a holiday invented by militant black nationalists?

In the US, like in the PRC, the ruling class is no longer interested in "marginalizing" and "stripping" oppressed ethnic groups of their cultural identity. Rather, in the US, like the PRC, the ruling class seeks out an ideological victory in not only paying lip-service to, but actually co-opting cultural identities, balderizing and mutilating them until they serve as doctrines of allegiance to imperialist hegemony.

As an aside, this hasn't always been true of the PRC, just as it hasn't always been true of the US. At one time the PRC outlawed the Tibetan language and banned all classical Tibetan literature. There is still extreme anti-Tibetan sentiment prevailant within the Chinese military, police, educational system, media, prisons, etc. Even though both China and the US have entered a neo-colonial, "politically correct", "multicultural" era of social control, Tibetans still have to live with having their culture mocked and degraded by their oppressors, being treated like second-class citizens, just as the same is true of blacks and Indians in the US.


Are Bavarians or Hessians not German?I dunno, they were conquered by the German state. If Bavarians and Hessians want to identify themselves as "Germans", that's their freedom. I think it's moronic. I wouldn't consider myself "German" even if I was Prussian.


Last time I was in Berlin, I saw neither tracht nor Augustiner (much to my disappointment) nor Bavarian flags, and I didn't meet anyone who spoke Bavarian (and, failing that, the accent was quite different). You overestimate the homogeneity of Germany.It's not totally homogenized, but more-so than in Tibet. I would guess that most Bavarians and Hessians identify as German and have some degree of patriotic allegiance to the modern German state. The same is definately not true of the average Tibetan, who doesn't consider herself ethnically or culturally Chinese in any way, views China as a foreign, occupying, colonizing force, and displays violent resentment towards every aspect of Chinese socio-political rule


The riots in Tibet were led by reactionaries with a feudalist ideology:laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Sort of like the John Birch Society theory believing that black unrest was engineered by the KGB in league with the CPUSA...

Seriously, every riot in Tibet was led by fuedalist reactionaries? How could that even be possible? The very psychological reality of a riot prevents it from being easily "led". Riots in Tibet start the same way they start everywhere else, as spontanious outbursts of mass-frustration.


and the CIA was active in the region in the 1950's.So? Soviet intelligence was active in the USA during the 1950s. You don't think they enganged in psy-ops to win over the support of dissident blacks, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, etc.? Think of all of the vulgar appeals made by the Japanaese imperialists to blacks, American Indians, etc. during WWII. Intra-imperialist rivalries always involve trying to win over the other side's underclasses and colonial subjects


The riots have not been constantBy what measure? Tibetan uprisings have occured as frequently as black uprisings in the US...


Tibetans are not being oppressed on the basis of nationalityYes they are. Stop apologizing for capitalist apartheid and settlerism.


the PRC brought much-needed progress and reform to the region(Jeff Foxworthy voice) If you consider security cameras, police patrols, concrete high-rises, and compulsory, bureaucratized schooling to be "progress" and "reform"....you just might be a capitalist :D


and Tibet is now better connected to the world because of it.Do the Tibetan people want "connection"? Why is being "connected" to the global capitalist economy, from the pespective of an anti-capitalist radical, supposed to be a good thing, exactly?


In addition, they do have autonomy within the PRC.The Basque Country and Quebec are both legally "autonomous" but they have no real political, military, or economic autonomy. Same with Tibet.


I'm not asking you whether or not you like Italian politics or the Italian ruling class, I'm asking you whether or not it's legitimate that Sicilians and Milanese consider themselves "Italian".It's worth pointing out that Sicilian and Milanese, like Italian, are both members of the Italo-Western subgroup of Romance language-family, whereas Tibetan is a Tibeto-Burman rather than Sinic language. There is, thus, a much larger cultural difference between Tibetans and Chinese, as a Tibetan has more cultural similarities with a Burmese, a Lao, a Nepalese, etc. than a Han Chinese, then there would be between, say Milanese, Sicilians, and Romans.

However, many Sicilians and Milanese consider themselves not Italian, but distinct, independent nationalities who deserve freedom from the Italian state. (Most of these groups are right-wing fascists, but their understanding of Italian ethnic identity is correct) Ultimately, whether Sicilians and Milanese are "Italians" is up to Sicilians and Milanese to decide, not a German who has lived in the Appalachian mountains his whole life, such as myself. Similarly, you, being an obvious non-Tibetan, are not the dictator of Tibetan cultural identity. Sorry, I know it feels rough being told you're not entitled to everything you think you are


Italy and Germany should not die, they should be transformed.

Could you please explain to me how geopolitical borders and divisions such as "Italy" and "Germany" would have any relevance in a post-capitalist society?


The Qing Dynasty. Tibet. 1652.Uh....OK...what's the point of this piece of trivia? The Mongolians conquered Germany at one point...are Germans Mongols? Are you saying that Marxist-Leninists should base their understanding of ethnic dynamics and ethnic identity on the geo-political territorial conquests of fuedal Chinese imperialists? Or implying the Qing Dynasty was somehow "progressive" in the same way the PRC allegedly is? By your same argument, Koreans are Japanese.


How is the PRC imperialist?Depends on if you're referring to the Leninist definition of imperialism or the Luxemburgist definition of imperialism. Either way, a solid argument can be made for the PRC's imperialism


You've been dodging the autonomoy given to those nations within the PRC.I think I've covered the subjeect of alleged "autonomy", at least to my satisfaction. In the US and Canada, many American Indians live under "autonomous" tribal governments that are still utterly beholden to the political and economic interests of the Anglo-American empire. What about the "autonomous" black state that the Yankees tried to form immediately after the American Civil War? I guess if it weren't for the KKK, blacks would be "autonomous" too....

"Neo-colonialism"....Google it.


Where is your manufactured indignation over the "oppression" of the Zhuang? What about the Manchurians?I am a stranger on a message board. Considering you can't even read my facial expressions or vocal inclinations, I imagine it would be very difficult of you to legimately determine whether my indignation is "manufactured" or not.

I'm more familiar with the politics of Tibetan national liberation than I am with Zhuang or Manchurian national liberation politics, becuase I know more Tibetans than I do Zhuang or Manchurians. Just of of curiousity, do you know any Tibetans?

And I brought up Tibet because it happened to be a good example that served the point I was trying to make. I don't think any individual national liberation struggle is more important than any other. But nice try.


There's been a campaign of demonization of the PRC, led by the Dalai Lama and his imperialist backers, and you've bought into it hook, line and sinker.As I've already said, fuck the Dalai Lama in his fat little ass. The Dalai Lama doesn't even want Tibetan police, Tibetan politicians, Tibetan CEOs, and Tibetan prison-guards to rule over Tibet. He basically just supports the prolonged military occupation of Tibet on the condition that Tibetans be given the same sort of totally bogus "respect" for their "autonomy" and "cultural identity" that you have so gullibly fallen for.

Tibetans don't give a shit about the Dalai Lama. In their eyes, he's part of the problem. The Dalai Lama is currently enganged himself in trying to pacify the Tibetan proletariat, and mediate the conflict between the Tibetan nation and the PRC.


If we were to imagine the PRC as imperialist. But then, of course, we'd have to imagine it.Oh, I forgot, only white Americans can be imperialist.


If you embrace the right of self-determination, why are you making a purple-faced condemnation of a country that gives autonomy to its many nationalities?Because the "autonomy" only exists on paper.

Hey, guess what, the Mohawks are also allegedly autonomous, in a purely theoretic, legal sense. Let's look at how well that's been working out for them so far. I guess capitalists (including Chinese "communist" capitalists) don't always follow capitalist laws. Go figure


And don't pretend to be a student of Marx when you have a circle-A in your signature.Karl Marx was an anarchist in my book. This is especially apparent from reading his later works. In fact, Karl Marx is one of the most vocal and eloquant critics of Marxism.


If you knew the first thing about the principles of communism (aka Marxism)"Communism has no need for Karl Marx. Communism does not give a shit about the Soviet Union"
-A Call, the Invisible Committee


you wouldn't be spewing unadulterated hatred for the CPCEven most self-respecting M-L-Ms hate the CCP these days. I know you WWP/PSL goons haven't gotten the memo yet.

[OriginalGumby]

I take issue with a number of political ideas presented in this debate.
Firstly I think that the word imperialism is not entirely understood by some members of this debate. I look to Lenin and Bukharin on this subject.
They describe imperialism as a stage of capitalism defined by several main features including particularly relevant to this discussion the development of monopolies that form closer relations with their respective nation state, the spread of competition internationally through capital investment, and that the world of resources (including labor) and markets is entirely carved up. This stage is punctuated with international political, economic, and military conflict. Imperialism is not just one of the three. Also imperialism as a stage is international and is not just conducted by the US. Numerous countries including Iran are engaged in investments outside of their national boundaries that are ultimately guarded with force(whether or not they choose to use it) and numerous countries including Iran fit together in alliances with other countries in competition with other blocs of countries. Think about the closer relations that Iran is developing in Iraq. These alliances and investments and the whole assortment of countries involved whatever The position of the US in an alliance does not make said alliance more imperialist and others less so relative to it. I'm sick of anti-imperialism being reduced to a countries hostility to the US and that displacing the self-determination of people within their own countries. It is possible to both support movements against repressive governments and to support a right to no foreign intervention. Also I wonder if comrades who claim here that supporting the movement in Iran is defacto supporting US intervention would accept that opposing said movement is supporting the hands of competing ruling classes who have interests in common with the current Iranian government against the interests of the working class. Is that not a glaring contradiction in analysis. While the true international socialists oppose foreign and domestic opression and side with niether bloc of imperialists choosing to instead support a legitamate self determination struggle on the ground in Iran now that can and is evolving, the "anti-imperialists" choose to oppose the mass movement in defacto support of the current regime and its imperial allies. I don't approve of how the analysis of the PSL gives so little credit to the dynamics that such a struggle can produce and see the role of the workers and others as second to the role of states. Oh never mind that there are conversations in Iran right now about the last Iranian Revolution in 79 including the shoras or workers councils that were set up because the US capitialists may gain:rolleyes:. Isn't it obvious that the work for socialists in Iran should be to intervene in that movement too dependen its politics and strentghen its organization. Lenin talked about revolutionary defeatism, that instead of supporting one side of imperial war you should support civil war against the imperialists. That is the dynamic that is playing out in Iran right now even if it is contradictory. The mantainence of stregth of a bloc of capitalists competeing with "US imperialism" is not progress for socialism or the working class. And of course any poltical system that exists with be influced by class interests and imperial ambitions, a world revolution is required to do away with that. The struggle for democracy has a real and lasting affect on working class consciousness and has real material reforms. Imagine if political organizations, unions, etc were not illegal, if the government made it illegal to discriminate against women, LGBT people and other oppressed groups. The socialist movment evolves out of and is deeply connected with the self activity of the working class in the struggle for basic democratic rights. For that reason I express my support for one of the most exciting things that is happening on the world stage. I just took out some Lenin to read but I have to take off. Will be back to continue this discussion.

[Martin Blank]

Kid, the only thing you have in common with most professors is a raging ego trip. That, and a complete irrelevance to class struggle.

You were the one who used the professor term first. But now you're regretting it because you find yourself getting schooled on this issue. You're losing the argument, which is why you're resorting to comments like those above.

"Irrelevant"? Really? I've done more in the last 15 years than you could do in two of your lifetimes. I've organized unions where none ever existed before. I've organized strikes and other collective workers' actions where none had ever been taken before. I've organized anti-fascist actions that drew thousands (and a couple that drew over 10,000) and anti-war actions that drew hundreds and thousands. I've helped organize anti-racist and anti-police brutality actions that numbered in the thousands. I've been arrested for physically defending abortion clinics (and still can't go to Minnesota because of that), fighting the KKK and Nazis, and "picking a scab and making it bleed".

What have you done? How have you established your "relevancy" in the class struggle? Joined the PSL? Went to an ANSWER demo? Just because you're mummy and daddy paid for you to deadhead across Germany on your summer off from graduate school doesn't make your either more "internationalist" or more "relevant". Back here in the real world, it just makes you a slummer.


The mutual agreement you mention happened after the decisive French defeat; the French simply had no way to enforce their will over the country any longer, and so characteristically, they handed the task over to whom? The most powerful, most influential imperialist power in the world, the US. None of that contradicts my statements, and actually your little wiki-lecture supports what I was saying in the first place: the US was the driving force in imperialism then, as it remains today. The US was more than happy to attempt to bring Vietnam into its own "sphere", whereas today European countries are compelled through pressure to send troops to US imperialism's misadventures throughout the world.

I feel like I'm shouting back through time. This is not 1956 and U.S. imperialism is no longer the predominant imperialist power. As it is, Washington was dragged into Vietnam because of its agreements with France. It was not "more than happy" to jump into that mess, which is why they held off for more than a decade from making a real commitment of military forces. They saw it as a waste of resources; there was no profit in it. But like what we saw with the Entente in the First World War, the interlocking agreements the ruling class signed meant they would have lost even more if they had reneged.


But keep ignoring facts, I'm sure your anarchist cheerleader will be doing gymnastics for your paper-thin arguments anyway.

You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I have given you the facts of the matter. You can sneer at them and call my statements a "Wiki-lecture", but it doesn't change those facts or make them any friendlier to you.

[manic expression]

Which you refuse to do by pretending like the US is still an unrivaled imperial power. Even during the height of its prominence, the US was still constantly under threat from major imperialist competitors such as Spain, Britian, Germany, and the Soviet Union. Now, even though the US is still #1, it is only by a very slim margin.

The USSR wasn't imperialist. They didn't exploit any resources for capitalist profit. Obviously you're making stuff up.

Anyway, you've been singularly unable to provide any reasoning for your suspicion that the US is being eclipsed by other imperialist powers. I have given support for my side, so the ball's in your court.


"the dynamics of capitalism", right now, in 2009, are not the same as "the dynamics of capitalism" in 1950. Germany, France, Benelux, and the UK are no longer lackies of the US, through their combined efforts they have formed an imperialist "super-power" that rivals the US. (Rivals the US not just in terms of scope, but also in terms of having entirely seperate and sometimes contradictory strategic and tactical interests) The Russian Federation, while not an economic super-power, is a military super-power that only barely lags behind the US, whereas the PRC (as I recall) has a significantly larger military than the US. Why you fail to "pinpoint" this is obvious, if you accepted it, the premises of most of your political positions would be turned upside down, including your stances on Iran and Tibet.

Germany, France, Benelux (of which one member state can barely form a government) and the UK are all dependent on American market health and can't sniff the military theat that American imperialism forms against the workers. Russia is a better argument, but even then, Russia's imperialist belligerence is nowhere near the US; the invasion of Georgia was mostly a defensive measure against a CIA client state.

That's all obvious, though.


I only hate "nations" that were created to justify the existence of multi-national states (the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, China, India, virtually every African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American country, even Japan, since the "nation" of Japan includes the Yamato ethnic majority as well as indigenous, colonized ethnic minorities such as the Ainu, Ryukyuans, etc.)

You mean countries, not nations. At any rate, the PRC is quite different from the others you mentioned it its treatment of non-Han nationalities. While the other countries on that list are guilty of stripping nationalities of their identity and heritage, the PRC gives autonomy to non-Han groups and defends their self-determination.


"Nations" that actually reflect real, traditional ethnic identities, I have no problem with. Notice, for example, I made no criticism of the Apache nation.

All nations reflect as much, because nations are not bound by borders. Countries are. Just as Bavaria is legitimately part of Germany, so too is Tibet legitimately part of China.


All of this is true, but the US takes it too far by sinking all of their military spending into pointless, state-of-the-art bombers and carriers that are never used, and mostly exist to show-boat, to the detriment of their ground forces. Obama, being the brilliant capitalist he is, has realized this, and is trying to change it, much to the dismay of the bull-headed, antiquated, right-wing capitalists

They aren't pointless. Stealth bombers were instrumental in the two invasions of Iraq, aircraft carriers are often used in many ways (they're presently used to intimidate Iran, China and other countries). Do they cost a ton? Could the US military be more efficient? Yes (especially in regard to the laughable missile shield project). Is the spending still useful to a great extent? Yes.


The US still ranks #1, but it is certainly no lunger "unparalleled". Arguably, it was never "unparalleled".

How so?


The working class is made up of individuals who are free to decide what the most imminent threat is. If I am a proletariat in Madagascar getting the shit kicked out of my by local police, "the most imminent threat" is the local police of whatever town in Madagascar I live in.

I was speaking on an international level, and the most imminent threat to the workers of all countries is American imperialism.


Seriously, do you expect all the Iranian anarchists and Maoists to book flights to the USA so they can riot here instead? Or do you expect them just to remain docile and servile to the Iranian bourgeoisie while they wait for American commies to overthrow the US?

I've explained this before on many threads. It is perfectly reasonable and positive for Iranian communists to agitate within and without these demonstrations, and we should applaud them for actively propagating revolutionary politics during this period. However, their involvement does not make the entire situation anything but what it is: a struggle between two factions within the Islamic Republic, and an opportunity for American imperialism to reenforce its control over Iran.


But the point is that the US imperialists haven't "gotten their way" in a pretty long time....

I never said they were infallible, I said they were a threat. Even when the screw up, they murder a million or so Iraqis, so I'm not sure how it matters to workers all that much.


Uhh....the E fucking U?

When I see the EU flag flying over an invaded and oppressed country, I'll reconsider my position.


I think Miles handled this one well, so I'll leave it at what she/he said.

Check out my response.


Which I can get from reading Marx and Engels, not your posts. Get off your high horse.

Not on the situation at hand. Read my post again, you have a lot to gain from it.


This is irrelevant. All imperialists are in economic trouble but some know how to respond to the economic trouble better than others. (Eg: The resiliance of Toyotism in comparison to Fordism)

You act as if the Japanese economy isn't facing a whole lot of trouble. Shipping to Japan is down by a lot, and Japan makes a great deal of its money off of manufacturing sophisticated products from raw imports. Toyota's nice, but that doesn't change the fact that Japanese capitalists are up sh*t creek with no paddle.


I understand that your arguments ignore the reality of the situation, such as the real set-back that the US imperialists are facing in both Iraq and the Afghani-Pakistani border at the hands of right-wing Islamic insurgents. This is the latest in a series of military catastrophies suffered by the US since the loss of the Vietnam war.

A catastrophe is when a Pakistani family is forced to flee its home because of American drones. That's precisely what I'm talking about; the only EU troops in Afghanistan are there at the express behest of American imperialism, and you're still sitting here saying they're on an equal playing field.


At this point, the quasi-fascist regime in Israel doesn't seem to give a shit (real commies don't use asterisks!) about any international opinion, including the opinion of the president of the US. Hence why the prez is having to distance himself from Israel and suck up to the Muslim world.

The US president is wavering on every issue from healthcare to gay rights. The Zionists know this, and they're testing him. Since Obama's straddling every fence imaginable, they'll probably get away with it to an extent, but only because pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans WANT them to expand settlements in Palestine (which they're doing right now).

US imperialism is still the culprit.


No, but Pakistan cares about what China, India, Russia, and the EU have to say. And Columbia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, etc. certianly do care about what Brazil has to say.

First, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Chile are in South America; the US cares about what Mexico says, it doesn't mean they're oppressed by them. Pakistan borders China and India, and has fought with India on multiple occassions. As far as the EU and Russia, American influence far outweighs them in Pakistan.


Again, a good example of you chosing to define "imperialism" as "anything that fits the description of the US". Is the definition of "unparalleled imperialist superpower" now "anyone who happens to be doing a really shoddy job of trying to occupy Iraq"?

That's not my definition, it's what you want my definition to be.

The US is occupying Iraq BECAUSE it was able to do what it wanted, where it wanted, the way it wanted to. It didn't do it well, it screwed up, but I've dealt with that already.

You saying that US imperialism isn't the threat it is because they've made mistakes is like saying the British Empire wasn't powerful because the Boer War was so difficult. Ridiculous and the product of wishful thinking.


Well, the events of today forecast the near future. If the US is on a steady decline, why should we suspend all acts of aggression against other capitalist forces under the pretense that the US is the "primary" threat?

We're talking about Iran, which is happening in 2009, not 2030. Do try to keep up.


That's your opinion. The Western media loves to claim that Basques now have "a great deal of autonomy" from Spain, that hasn't stopped the Basques from rebelling, either. Whether the Zhuang, the Tibetans, or any other ethnic group, within the borders of China, or anywhere else, has a sufficient "deal" of autonomy, is for them to decide, not you. (Unless you happen to be Tibetan or Zhuang) ALL nations have a right to self-determination, as defined on their terms. Your particular brand of Maoist ideology tends to only believe in national self-determination for nations oppressed by the US and Europe. As a consequence, it is totally phoney internationalism that is utterly capitalist in its interior logic.

The people of China have decided that the PRC's treatment of its various nationalities is positive: during the capitalist propaganda blitz in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics, Chinese people of all nationalities, both inside and outside the PRC, defended the PRC from this slander that you're now regurgitating.

The Basques had to fight for that autonomy tooth-and-nail, and even then the Spanish government gave it up only grudgingly. That's a big difference.

And I'm not a Maoist, just like you're not a student of Marx.


And what if I consider the term "Chinese" an insult? (As someone born within the borders of the US, I certainly get insulted when people refer to me as an "American", rather than a Celtic-German/Cherokee mutt that happens to live within the borders of the US) Have you ever talked to a Zhuang regarding her feelings on the issue, or are you just making an assumption based on your zero real-world experience with the issue?

The term "Chinese" is not insulting, and it's incredibly insensitive for you to suggest it is. And I personally know plenty of Chinese people from China, and I've talked to them on a variety of issues. Erqie, wo keyi shou you.yi.dianr.de zhong guo hua! Ni xiang bu xiang ni shi wo.de laoshi? Zao gao!


I don't know if you live in the US or not, but the US has basically appropriated the PRC's approach to dealing with "minority" nationalities. Your understanding of the nuances of ethnic interactions in the US seems very poor, and stuck in the 1950s and 60s, which would be especially sad of you if you happened to live in the US.

Perhaps you should get out more. Oppression and the pressure to assimilate are routine for oppressed nationalities within the US. Latinos are scorned and attacked simply for speaking their own language, blacks are denied any form of control over their own communities, and that's not even addressing the capitalist police. The treatment of non-white nationalities in the US is absolutely terrible, there is no sort of autonomy that exists in the PRC, because the revolutionary gains of the CPC have no place in capitalist society. Malcolm X once said you can't have capitalism without racism, and history shows him to be correct.


If nationalities in the US were being "stripped of their identity", why would Obama claim to admire Malcolm X? Why would Sonia Sotomayor claim her experiences as a working-class Latina better prepare her for being a judge? Why would state-issued textbooks throughout teach children about bastardized, watered down versions of "Native American" and "African-American" culture? Why would millions of white yuppies get bamboozled by phoney "Native American shamans", both white and Indian, selling them a plastic, distorted version Indian spirituality? Why would there be holiday specials on TV glorifying Kwanzaa, a holiday invented by militant black nationalists?

That, more than anything else, shows that nationalities in the US ARE being stripped of their identity. Exactly as you said: plastic, distorted versions of heritages and identities.


In the US, like in the PRC, the ruling class is no longer interested in "marginalizing" and "stripping" oppressed ethnic groups of their cultural identity. Rather, in the US, like the PRC, the ruling class seeks out an ideological victory in not only paying lip-service to, but actually co-opting cultural identities, balderizing and mutilating them until they serve as doctrines of allegiance to imperialist hegemony.

Try showing some evidence of that in the PRC.


As an aside, this hasn't always been true of the PRC, just as it hasn't always been true of the US. At one time the PRC outlawed the Tibetan language and banned all classical Tibetan literature. There is still extreme anti-Tibetan sentiment prevailant within the Chinese military, police, educational system, media, prisons, etc. Even though both China and the US have entered a neo-colonial, "politically correct", "multicultural" era of social control, Tibetans still have to live with having their culture mocked and degraded by their oppressors, being treated like second-class citizens, just as the same is true of blacks and Indians in the US.

See previous answer.


I dunno, they were conquered by the German state. If Bavarians and Hessians want to identify themselves as "Germans", that's their freedom. I think it's moronic. I wouldn't consider myself "German" even if I was Prussian.

Bavarians are German. Hessians are German. Ask anyone on the street of Frankfurt-am-Main or Munich, and outside of some quasi-fascist nutbag, you'll hear the same answer.


It's not totally homogenized, but more-so than in Tibet. I would guess that most Bavarians and Hessians identify as German and have some degree of patriotic allegiance to the modern German state. The same is definately not true of the average Tibetan, who doesn't consider herself ethnically or culturally Chinese in any way, views China as a foreign, occupying, colonizing force, and displays violent resentment towards every aspect of Chinese socio-political rule

"Chinese" meaning the culture and ethnicity of the Han people. And most Tibetans had no part in those riots, and all Tibetans are benefitting from the improvements of the past 50 years.


:laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Sort of like the John Birch Society theory believing that black unrest was engineered by the KGB in league with the CPUSA...

The CIA was active in Tibet and winning support. That's a historical fact. If you want to deny that, I think it's more than fitting for you to do so.


Seriously, every riot in Tibet was led by fuedalist reactionaries? How could that even be possible? The very psychological reality of a riot prevents it from being easily "led". Riots in Tibet start the same way they start everywhere else, as spontanious outbursts of mass-frustration.

A riot has its vanguard and its agitators, as well as its causes. Your logic that no one was responsible is simply side-stepping the issue.


So? Soviet intelligence was active in the USA during the 1950s.

Good.


You don't think they enganged in psy-ops to win over the support of dissident blacks, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, etc.?

They didn't need to engage in "psy-ops", because the greatest members of the black community were telling everyone who could listen that the Soviet Union offered a better society than capitalism. Paul Robeson and WE B Du Bois were ardent defenders of the Soviet Union.


Think of all of the vulgar appeals made by the Japanaese imperialists to blacks, American Indians, etc. during WWII. Intra-imperialist rivalries always involve trying to win over the other side's underclasses and colonial subjects

The USSR wasn't imperialist, so the comparison is fallacious to the highest extent.


By what measure? Tibetan uprisings have occured as frequently as black uprisings in the US...

That's ludicrous. After the assassination of MLK alone, there were riots in multiple cities across the country. How many have occurred in Tibet? What were the demands?


Yes they are. Stop apologizing for capitalist apartheid and settlerism.

Why do you believe this? Because you said so? Because the Dalai Lama and the US media said so? Please.


(Jeff Foxworthy voice) If you consider security cameras, police patrols, concrete high-rises, and compulsory, bureaucratized schooling to be "progress" and "reform"....you just might be a capitalist :D

Oh Baby Jesus, save us from compulsory schooling! Save us from security measures in a border area in which a war was fought! Save us from housing that shelters large numbers of people! ZAO GAO!

More liberal indignation from RevLeft's Free Tibet camp.


Do the Tibetan people want "connection"? Why is being "connected" to the global capitalist economy, from the pespective of an anti-capitalist radical, supposed to be a good thing, exactly?

I haven't seen polling data, but the Tibetan people are benefitting from the modernization carried out with the help of the PRC. Using your logic, we would all be a lot better if we were shut off from the world like 9th Century Europe...that would be real revolutionary.

Listen, if you don't understand why being connected to the modern world is a good thing, I suggest you read a few pages of Marx for a change, since you obviously haven't.


The Basque Country and Quebec are both legally "autonomous" but they have no real political, military, or economic autonomy. Same with Tibet.

That "autonomy" was won after bitter struggles with a capitalist state; the Tibetan people achieved real autonomy because it was the rule, not the exception, in the PRC. Further, Tibet's autonomous area is above and beyond anything in Basque Country or Quebec.


It's worth pointing out that Sicilian and Milanese, like Italian, are both members of the Italo-Western subgroup of Romance language-family, whereas Tibetan is a Tibeto-Burman rather than Sinic language. There is, thus, a much larger cultural difference between Tibetans and Chinese, as a Tibetan has more cultural similarities with a Burmese, a Lao, a Nepalese, etc. than a Han Chinese, then there would be between, say Milanese, Sicilians, and Romans.

Ethnically and culturally, Sicily has a great amount of influence from the Arab world, and has very little in common with Milan. In fact, most Italians I've met say that northern and southern Italy might as well be two countries.

Even more importantly, however, other provinces of the PRC, such as Guizhou and Hunan, speak Tibeto-Burman languages as well. So your argument here comes to nothing.


Similarly, you, being an obvious non-Tibetan, are not the dictator of Tibetan cultural identity. Sorry, I know it feels rough being told you're not entitled to everything you think you are

I say the exact same to you, and in the meantime, I support the autonomy of the Tibetan people within the PRC. I'll let you bottle your liberal rage for another occassion.


Could you please explain to me how geopolitical borders and divisions such as "Italy" and "Germany" would have any relevance in a post-capitalist society?

The identification of someone as a "German" transcends borders. As we have seen, nationalities within Germany with distinct traditions identify themselves as "German" while claiming different heritages. Thus, in a revolutionary society, this broader identification of "German" will not and should not be somehow forgotten or thrown to the side.


Uh....OK...what's the point of this piece of trivia? The Mongolians conquered Germany at one point...are Germans Mongols?

They got as far as Poland, the Magyars got farther but in the end settled in present-day Hungary. The Mongols really conquered Russia, and their dominion there was one of the longest-lasting of its empire. The shared history between Russians and Mongolians continues today, and Russia and Mongolia have had close relations for some time.


Are you saying that Marxist-Leninists should base their understanding of ethnic dynamics and ethnic identity on the geo-political territorial conquests of fuedal Chinese imperialists? Or implying the Qing Dynasty was somehow "progressive" in the same way the PRC allegedly is? By your same argument, Koreans are Japanese.

Wrong again. The Qing Dynasty's incorporation of Tibet into its borders marks when Tibet and China began a shared history and a shared political entity. This is not "good" or "bad", it is simply a historical fact, and its legacy remains with us today. Just like the many Central Asian peoples' relations with Russia have forged a common history, so too has China (then ruled, coincidentally enough, by a Manchurian dynastic line) been intertwined with Tibet for many centuries.


Depends on if you're referring to the Leninist definition of imperialism or the Luxemburgist definition of imperialism. Either way, a solid argument can be made for the PRC's imperialism

Right. Have fun doing that.


I think I've covered the subjeect of alleged "autonomy", at least to my satisfaction. In the US and Canada, many American Indians live under "autonomous" tribal governments that are still utterly beholden to the political and economic interests of the Anglo-American empire. What about the "autonomous" black state that the Yankees tried to form immediately after the American Civil War? I guess if it weren't for the KKK, blacks would be "autonomous" too....

See my previous answers to this ridiculous pattern of ridiculous comparisons.


"Neo-colonialism"....Google it.

Make a point.


I am a stranger on a message board. Considering you can't even read my facial expressions or vocal inclinations, I imagine it would be very difficult of you to legimately determine whether my indignation is "manufactured" or not.

The written word affords us such insights.


I'm more familiar with the politics of Tibetan national liberation than I am with Zhuang or Manchurian national liberation politics, becuase I know more Tibetans than I do Zhuang or Manchurians. Just of of curiousity, do you know any Tibetans?

Do you know any Han Chinese? I've met Tibetans, yes, but I don't know them personally.


And I brought up Tibet because it happened to be a good example that served the point I was trying to make. I don't think any individual national liberation struggle is more important than any other. But nice try.

And it's simply a coincidence that your rhetoric marches with the Free Tibet camp?


As I've already said, fuck the Dalai Lama in his fat little ass. The Dalai Lama doesn't even want Tibetan police, Tibetan politicians, Tibetan CEOs, and Tibetan prison-guards to rule over Tibet. He basically just supports the prolonged military occupation of Tibet on the condition that Tibetans be given the same sort of totally bogus "respect" for their "autonomy" and "cultural identity" that you have so gullibly fallen for.

Like I said, then you should condemn his followers' rhetoric in the same manner.


Oh, I forgot, only white Americans can be imperialist.

They're not the only imperialists, just the most powerful, and more and more members of the American bourgeoisie are non-white.


Because the "autonomy" only exists on paper.

Not when every nation in the PRC has guaranteed rights. Minority nationalities are exempt from the One-Child Policy, they recieve preferential economic development, they are guaranteed the right to use and develop distinct traditions and languages and more. So no, it's not on paper, the "oppression" is just on paper: imperialist newspapers.


Hey, guess what, the Mohawks are also allegedly autonomous, in a purely theoretic, legal sense. Let's look at how well that's been working out for them so far. I guess capitalists (including Chinese "communist" capitalists) don't always follow capitalist laws. Go figure

Good thing the PRC doesn't follow such terrible policies.


Karl Marx was an anarchist in my book. This is especially apparent from reading his later works. In fact, Karl Marx is one of the most vocal and eloquant critics of Marxism.

Well, "your book" is comically incorrect. Marx clashed with the anarchists on a variety of issues, eventually expelling them from the First International in 1873 (when he was writings his "later works"). Marx was a vocal and eloquent critic of anarchists who pretended to be Marxists, a tradition of which you are apparently a part of.


"Communism has no need for Karl Marx. Communism does not give a shit about the Soviet Union"
-A Call, the Invisible Committee

Never heard of "the Invisible Committee", and from their childish view of communism, I can see why. Marx was the founder of communist thought, and his writings remain the foundation of its principles along with Engels'.


Even most self-respecting M-L-Ms hate the CCP these days. I know you WWP/PSL goons haven't gotten the memo yet.

Such hatred blinds a rational analysis of the situation. Whatever the answers to the questions facing the Chinese proletariat, it is clear that they lie inside, not outside, the membership of the Communist Party of China. So while we've gotten that memo of hatred, we instead apply materialist analyses, they work better.

[manic expression]

You were the one who used the professor term first. But now you're regretting it because you find yourself getting schooled on this issue. You're losing the argument, which is why you're resorting to comments like those above.

What's the matter? At wit's end? No longer insinuating that you should be my professor? You tried to play that game and now you're backing up, much like the rest of your arguments.


"Irrelevant"? Really? I've done more in the last 15 years than you could do in two of your lifetimes. I've organized unions where none ever existed before. I've organized strikes and other collective workers' actions where none had ever been taken before. I've organized anti-fascist actions that drew thousands (and a couple that drew over 10,000) and anti-war actions that drew hundreds and thousands. I've helped organize anti-racist and anti-police brutality actions that numbered in the thousands. I've been arrested for physically defending abortion clinics (and still can't go to Minnesota because of that), fighting the KKK and Nazis, and "picking a scab and making it bleed".

What's your party up to, again? Every time I point out how lethargic/invisible the ICC is, I get some message listing how active some of its members are, how accomplished they've been, how much of a "rep" they have. Doesn't change the basic mathematics of the organization, now does it?


What have you done? How have you established your "relevancy" in the class struggle? Joined the PSL? Went to an ANSWER demo? Just because you're mummy and daddy paid for you to deadhead across Germany on your summer off from graduate school doesn't make your either more "internationalist" or more "relevant". Back here in the real world, it just makes you a slummer.

I seem to have touched a nerve. One moment you're decrying personal attacks, and next you're digging through bits of my personal information to form some sort of comprehensive insult. Charming. Do they have classes for this kind of behavior in your party, too?

I've never been to graduate school, as you seem to have concluded, but I have been working my ass off to promote socialist politics, oftentimes by myself, for years, in locales where professing socialism brings either scorn or intimidation or both. I've participated in more demonstrations and actions than I can remember, but I don't try to wear it like some RevLeft medal of honor. I've been involved in many antifa and anti-discrimination campaigns, almost always local and usually with police interference. I've helped organize many events for many issues, no matter how little help I had (and one which drew about a thousand). I don't feel comfortable posting on a public forum what I've done with unions, as many union activists here can understand. Most importantly, though, I do what I can where I can do it, and I don't put much stock into egotistical dick-measuring contests on RevLeft, something you seem quite fond of (whatever helps you feel better, I suppose).

And I reside in Germany. Nevertheless, it's good to know you hate traveling through countries as much as you hate learning about them.


I feel like I'm shouting back through time. This is not 1956 and U.S. imperialism is no longer the predominant imperialist power. As it is, Washington was dragged into Vietnam because of its agreements with France. It was not "more than happy" to jump into that mess, which is why they held off for more than a decade from making a real commitment of military forces. They saw it as a waste of resources; there was no profit in it. But like what we saw with the Entente in the First World War, the interlocking agreements the ruling class signed meant they would have lost even more if they had reneged.

What, so France organized the Tonkin Gulf incident? The US ruling class was eager to enforce its will over Vietnam, and it lied in order to justify doing so. The imperialist fear of a socialist Vietnam was the overriding concern, just as the fear of a successful Cuba or a free Angola caused them to send death to Latin America and Africa.


You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I have given you the facts of the matter. You can sneer at them and call my statements a "Wiki-lecture", but it doesn't change those facts or make them any friendlier to you.

You have given your opinion on the matter, one which does not align with the facts. That's the point here.

[Martin Blank]

Don't try to rationalize the facts away. The German capitalists are more than dependent upon the American bourgeoisie, and yet you're sitting here saying the former are eclipsing the latter. You're sitting here saying that the German capitalists constitute an imperialist force that rivals the American one, even when the German ruling class is tied fully to the health of the American market.

I'm saying that the German and French imperialists, along with the bulk of the EU, and their Russian and Chinese allies, constitute an imperialist cartel that rivals the bloc created by the U.S. and Britain. Yes, they're all tied together because of the world capitalist system, and even rivals suffer when capitalism goes through a crisis.

The only person trying to rationalize something away here is you. You so much want the world to be unipolar that you're willing to close your eyes and ears to the reality of capitalism today. This is not the 1950s. Stop resting on the corpse of Sam Marcy for your theory and analysis.


The point is that your entire premise is fully incorrect: the American imperialist machine remains the driving force for the capitalists of all countries. Your attempt to wish this away is beyond pathetic.

American imperialism may still have a dominant place, but that's a relative position and one that is in flux. More to the point, it is heading downward while the positions of its rivals are heading upward. The higher they climb, the farther they have to fall, as the saying goes. And, yes, the U.S. has a long way to fall before hitting bottom. Nevertheless, it is falling -- its position is eroding, and Washington's rivals are taking advantage of the retreat.

You are seeing the world as a series of static photographs that only move when you decide to turn the page. It doesn't work that way.


Right, they held British and French and American imperialism responsible, since they were leading the imperialist camp at the time. Today, American imperialism is solely responsible for financial chaos, meaning you just proved my position.

You really are intellectually dishonest, aren't you?

Just because the current economic crisis began in the U.S. doesn't mean that "American imperialism is solely responsible" and, by that token, that Washington is "leading the imperialist camp". If that was true, then the U.S. has held that position since the end of the First World War, not the Second. After all, the economic crisis that sparked the worldwide Great Depression in 1929 began in the U.S., too.


The contradictions in capitalism, as all Marxists know, inflict the most problems upon the strongest capitalists. This is why the US is faltering economically, because it's been extending its forces farther and farther. The US invaded TWO countries which border Iran, coerced many countries into sending troops to at least one of those countries and stands a menace to the Iranian people. Yes, I do think you are trying to rationalize away Washington's sway.

No, I'm recognizing that there are consequences to events. The U.S. is faltering economically; it has overextended its economic and military projection; it has had to retreat from some areas in order to concentrate on others; it is no longer the world's producer, and is fast losing its position as the largest market.

Washington's rivals went to Afghanistan as a result of NATO commitments, just as the U.S. initially went to Yugoslavia. But when Washington wanted to go into Iraq, those rivals refused. And the U.S. was virtually powerless to compel them. And when the U.S. tried to start trade wars with the EU over it, Washington lost.

The U.S. may be tactically well-positioned to threaten Iran, but they do not have the world-strategic positioning.


I never argued that France and Germany would never try to capitalize upon the errors of the American bourgeoisie, I argued that they are, to a great extent, dependent upon the American ruling class and without the means of American imperialism. You have yet to address this fact.

Actually, I have addressed this assertion (not fact) of yours. France and Germany, together with Russia and China, have greater economic and political means than American imperialism. Their economies are better positioned to match the needs of their ruling classes, and any dependency they once had on Washington is fundamentally non-existent today. Again, this is not the 1950s. This isn't even the 1990s. You have yet to deal with the current situation as it is. You only deal abstractly with how it was.


See previous answer(s).

So you didn't actually have a point, except that nothing has changed in the last 50 years. Great job!


Why, do you think, the US hasn't dropped those sanctions? Obviously, there must be something in it for them if they're stopping oil companies from making profit there. You've left this question unanswered. The fact is that Iran's opposition to American political interests in the region has forced the American imperialists to place such sanctions upon Iran. The US doesn't sanction countries just because they feel like it, it's a calculated political maneuver in order to bully the people of Iran, and so far it hasn't worked.

You're right, it hasn't worked. Why hasn't it worked? Because America's rivals have ignored the sanctions and have taken advantage of the fact that the U.S. didn't "stake their claim" over those resources in order to do it themselves. Thanks for making my argument.


The American turnout...was the latest signal that relations between the two countries have thawed since the strains of 9/11. But it was also an acknowledgment of a simple fact: like it or not, the United States is more dependent than ever on Saudi Arabia.

"More dependent than ever". This is a relativism. If you give me $10 a week to buy lunch while at work, but then increase it to $20 a week, that means that I would be "more dependent than ever" on you.


The bulk of their exports, about 60 percent, goes to Asia, with Japan and China now counting Saudi Arabia as their prime supplier. About 1.5 million barrels a day make it to the United States, about 15 percent of American imports - but Saudi oil executives make it a point, politically, to remain among the nation's top three suppliers, with Canada and Mexico.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/business/worldbusiness/06saudi.html?pagewanted=print

You really need to stop seeing things through nationalist lenses. It might help you to look less ridiculous.


And since they are launched when only deemed "profitable", they are wars of profit.

So much for answering the political point.


You're ignoring the real issue. If Japan or Germany had the means, do you deny that they would launch imperialist wars? They aren't doing so because they simply can't, not because they care more about Iraqi lives than American capitalists.

If Japan and Germany had a reason to, they would. If they could only get what they want out of countries like Iraq, they would be acting just as the U.S. is there -- just as Germany has acted in Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much they "care" about anyone. Save that petty moralism for your church service.


And countries like Germany did so only with paramount cooperation with American businesses. That's why the German capitalists are still reeling from the American market crisis, they go as the Dow Jones goes.

Actually, the U.S. initially opposed the break-up of Yugoslavia. Washington believed it could achieve dominance in the Balkans best by using the federal structure in place in 1990. Germany and France disagreed, and provoked the secession of Croatia and Slovenia (and later Bosnia). In other words, they did this in opposition to American business, not "with paramount cooperation".


You're still dodging the fact that Japanese capitalists would use military force if only they could. But they can't.

I'm also not claiming that Japan is one of the main rivals of American imperialism. On the contrary, if you go back to the first post I wrote, you'll see that I called them "a former rival-cum-client growing increasingly independent of the Anglo-Americans".


The truth can hurt.

It seems to have done just that.


More wishful thinking with no real support. So they're comparing Mousavi to Mossadegh, you say? Of course they would, it's political opportunism at its finest. Mousavi's supporters (and they are his supporters, why else would they carry such placards) want to paint him as the answer to Iran's problems, because he's the entire reason for the demonstrations in the first place. They won't let it happen again, "it" being their man denied power, "their man" being Mousavi.

Anything to support the Islamists in power, eh? National socialism at its finest. The protesters could be carrying signs that say "For workers' power and socialism!" and "Join the PSL!" and you'd still denounce them as tools of imperialism.

Given what I know about how low the petty-bourgeois left can go, I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't something Healy-esque about the PSL's support for the Iranian regime.


No, no magic here, just a material analysis. The opposition to American imperialism represents an opposition to the most powerful imperialist force in the world, and as such, it represents increased self-determination and independence for the Iranian nation. American imperialists are getting frustrated, that's why they've been sure to applaud the demonstrations and find every reason why it's superb news. You, on the other hand, are still making a two-bit lecture about Japanese car companies and expecting it to mean something for the Iranian people.

This is what poverty of theory get you: denunciations of any analysis of capitalism and reliance on a 50-year old "theory" that's been superseded by material conditions.

Besides that, it's becoming more and more clear that imperialism is hedging its bets around Iran. They talk more and more about the protest movement being "over" and "losing steam". Meanwhile, the protests continue and have changed their focus. Coincidence? I think not.

[Martin Blank]

What's the matter? At wit's end? No longer insinuating that you should be my professor? You tried to play that game and now you're backing up, much like the rest of your arguments.

I often find myself at wit's end when dealing with the witless. Case in point:...


What's your party up to, again? Every time I point out how lethargic/invisible the ICC is, I get some message listing how active some of its members are, how accomplished they've been, how much of a "rep" they have. Doesn't change the basic mathematics of the organization, now does it?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Wrong party, dumbass! I'm in the Workers Party in America, not the ICC.


I seem to have touched a nerve. One moment you're decrying personal attacks, and next you're digging through bits of my personal information to form some sort of comprehensive insult. Charming. Do they have classes for this kind of behavior in your party, too?

If I was into psychobabble, I'd call this projection. But I'm not into psychobabble, so I won't call this projection.


I've never been to graduate school, as you seem to have concluded, but I have been working my ass off to promote socialist politics, oftentimes by myself, for years, in locales where professing socialism brings either scorn or intimidation or both. I've participated in more demonstrations and actions than I can remember, but I don't try to wear it like some RevLeft medal of honor. I've been involved in many antifa and anti-discrimination campaigns, almost always local and usually with police interference. I've helped organize many events for many issues, no matter how little help I had (and one which drew about a thousand). I don't feel comfortable posting on a public forum what I've done with unions, as many union activists here can understand. Most importantly, though, I do what I can where I can do it, and I don't put much stock into egotistical dick-measuring contests on RevLeft, something you seem quite fond of (whatever helps you feel better, I suppose).

You brought up the question of "relevancy", not me. You wanted to pretend like you actually have done something meaningful in the world, and no one else has. You brought this on yourself. Now go back to leftist kindergarten where you belong; when you've grown up and done something that has advanced the class struggle, let me know and we can talk again.


And I reside in Germany. Nevertheless, it's good to know you hate traveling through countries as much as you hate learning about them.

Oh, so mummy and daddy paid for your flat, too? I guess that is the definition of being "relevant".


What, so France organized the Tonkin Gulf incident? The US ruling class was eager to enforce its will over Vietnam, and it lied in order to justify doing so. The imperialist fear of a socialist Vietnam was the overriding concern, just as the fear of a successful Cuba or a free Angola caused them to send death to Latin America and Africa.

The military brass, and a minority section of the ruling class, wanted to expand the war, but they could not get a consensus of capitalists to agree until after Tonkin. It was that minority section that lied the country into a wider conflict. You act as if the ruling class is some monolithic entity, when, in fact, it has conflicting and contending factions.


You have given your opinion on the matter, one which does not align with the facts. That's the point here.

What you're presenting is neither fact nor reality. You give assertions based on moralistic and impressionistic "snapshots" of the real world, and attempt to pass them off as facts. Sorry. That might work on others, but it doesn't work on me.

[manic expression]

I often find myself at wit's end when dealing with the witless. Case in point:...

More tap-dancing around your hypocrisy. If you have any trouble thinking of a comeback next time, just ask your anarchist cheerleader, maybe the two of you can come up with something clever.


Wrong party, dumbass! I'm in the Workers Party in America, not the ICC.Ah yes, the old "playing dumb" defense. I was comparing the activity of your WPA to the ICC, which is somewhat similar: nonexistent.

Simple comparison too much for you? It's OK, maybe your party has a class for that, too.


If I was into psychobabble, I'd call this projection. But I'm not into psychobabble, so I won't call this projection.When did I last insult you using second-hand personal info over the internet? I just pointed out how irrelevant your party is and you threw a hissy-fit. Perhaps you should analyze your own insecurity.


You brought up the question of "relevancy", not me.Exactly, and it struck quite a nerve, didn't it? Not hard to see when you can't control your temper.


You wanted to pretend like you actually have done something meaningful in the world, and no one else has. You brought this on yourself. Now go back to leftist kindergarten where you belong; when you've grown up and done something that has advanced the class struggle, let me know and we can talk again.More pent-up frustration from someone who can't figure out a simple comparison. Keep it coming, kid, your immature whining just underlines how insecure you are.


Oh, so mummy and daddy paid for your flat, too? I guess that is the definition of being "relevant".:lol: If only I had a "flat", how easier life would be!

Since you're making stuff up about my life (of which you know nothing about), I can safely assume you're making stuff up about your life, too. That resume looks a lot funnier now that you've been shown to be a self-aggrandizing child.

Hmmm...maybe if you say I have a Corvette, you can make believe your organization isn't entirely irrelevant! You must have so much fun lying about people, parties and politics!


The military brass, and a minority section of the ruling class, wanted to expand the war, but they could not get a consensus of capitalists to agree until after Tonkin. It was that minority section that lied the country into a wider conflict. You act as if the ruling class is some monolithic entity, when, in fact, it has conflicting and contending factions.Wrong. Kennedy was considering ending US involvement (which shows that the US wasn't tied by treaties, something you wrongly asserted), LBJ reversed that decision. It's not that he was tricked by the military, he was even documented to have known the incident didn't happen, it's because he shared the same fears of the American bourgeoisie of a socialist Vietnam.


What you're presenting is neither fact nor reality. You give assertions based on moralistic and impressionistic "snapshots" of the real world, and attempt to pass them off as facts. Sorry. That might work on others, but it doesn't work on me.Right. The historical fact that US rulers considered ending involvement in Vietnam, and then got very involved mere months later, doesn't work on you. You're the one expecting us to believe the American imperialists were neutral on the possibility of Vietnamese workers establishing a socialist state, that is until their generals pulled a fast one on them. Let me know when you want to deal with the facts instead of your imagination, big guy.

[Martin Blank]

More tap-dancing around your hypocrisy. If you have any trouble thinking of a comeback next time, just ask your anarchist cheerleader, maybe the two of you can come up with something clever.

You have yet to demonstrate where I've been hypocritical. All you've demonstrated is that, when it comes to insults, you can dish it out but you can't take it (especially when it comes from an uppity worker).


Ah yes, the old "playing dumb" defense. I was comparing the activity of your WPA to the ICC, which is somewhat similar: nonexistent.

More like "playing with the dumb". Since you're in Germany, I doubt you're in any position to either observe or pass judgment on what we are doing.


Simple comparison too much for you? It's OK, maybe your party has a class for that, too.

Nah. We're too busy reading Marx right now. Thanks for the suggestion, though.


When did I last insult you using second-hand personal info over the internet? I just pointed out how irrelevant your party is and you threw a hissy-fit. Perhaps you should analyze your own insecurity.

Sounds like someone should call the Waaaahmbulance for you.


Exactly, and it struck quite a nerve, didn't it? Not hard to see when you can't control your temper.

You think that pissed me off? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: You really do think a lot of yourself, don't you? You're not even in my league, sport. Stop trying to play with the grown-ups.


More pent-up frustration from someone who can't figure out a simple comparison. Keep it coming, kid, your immature whining just underlines how insecure you are.

You remind me of a cat that runs into a window. You have this "I meant to do that" look about you, when you and everyone else knows you screwed up. There's really no point in covering your ass now. Everyone knows you blew it. You wrote about the ICC instead of the WPA, and now you're just trying to pass it off as a "simple comparison". Give me a break! Can't you admit when you make a mistake? Or are you really that arrogant? (My money is on the latter.)


Since you're making stuff up about my life (of which you know nothing about), I can safely assume you're making stuff up about your life, too. That resume looks a lot funnier now that you've been shown to be a self-aggrandizing child.

You know the old saying about assuming things. I suggest you heed it before making an even bigger ass of yourself.


Hmmm...maybe if you say I have a Corvette, you can make believe your organization isn't entirely irrelevant! You must have so much fun lying about people, parties and politics!

No, I just have fun screwing with you. It's apparently really easy to do.


Wrong. Kennedy was considering ending US involvement (which shows that the US wasn't tied by treaties, something you wrongly asserted), LBJ reversed that decision. It's not that he was tricked by the military, he was even documented to have known the incident didn't happen, it's because he shared the same fears of the American bourgeoisie of a socialist Vietnam.

LBJ was representative of that faction, so, yes, he knew Tonkin was contrived. Kennedy's consideration of drawing down the MAAG was criticized by those within his administration as a "betrayal of the French" (i.e., their treat commitments).


Right. The historical fact that US rulers considered ending involvement in Vietnam, and then got very involved mere months later, doesn't work on you. You're the one expecting us to believe the American imperialists were neutral on the possibility of Vietnamese workers establishing a socialist state, that is until their generals pulled a fast one on them. Let me know when you want to deal with the facts instead of your imagination, big guy.

The liberal faction of the bourgeoisie, represented by Kennedy, wanted détente with the Soviet Union and saw withdrawal from Vietnam as a way to do it. They wanted to negotiate a deal with Moscow that would have the USSR and China put pressure on Hanoi to pull back their forces and end the revolt in the south -- a "Korean solution". Kennedy's American University speech was meant to be the first rhetorical "olive branch" in this diplomatic maneuver. But Kennedy's assassination took the liberal faction of the bourgeoisie out of power (and, in the longer view, out of commission).

If you want to deal with facts, you have to deal with all of them, not just the ones that fit in your doctrine.

[Agrippa]

The USSR wasn't imperialist. They didn't exploit any resources for capitalist profit.

Could you do me a favor? Could you give me a list of the books you've read on the subject of the Soviet Union? Or the number of people who lived under the Soviet Union, or whose parents or grandparents lived under the Soviet Union, that you have talked to? Because I'm starting to assume you're one of those people whose only academic knowlege of conditions under the Soviet Union comes from reading Stalin - with all due resect to your intelligence. It doesn't hurt to read books by people whose ideologies are different than your own, you know....


Germany, France, Benelux (of which one member state can barely form a government) and the UK are all dependent on American market health.

Western Europe is no more dependent on the economic health of the American market than the US is on the Western European argument. You keep making this stale argument, expecting it to be more effective. As has been explained time and time again by both myself and Miles, we live in a global capitalist system. Capitalist nation-states are dependent upon each other. That doesn't mean the US is omnipotent. Can you imagine how dependent the US is on the health of the African, Asian, Latin American, and Mid-Eastern markets?


Russia is a better argument, but even then, Russia's imperialist belligerence is nowhere near the US; the invasion of Georgia was mostly a defensive measure against a CIA client state.

Oh goodness. Where do you actually get this stuff from? Was every intra-imperialist conflict involving the US caused by the US? Did Roosevelt orchestrate Pearl Harbor? What about Lucetania?


You mean countries, not nations.

If you're going to spring a semanting argument on me, I'm going to need another smoke. A country is a geographic area, whereas a nation is a group of people with a shared linguistic and cultural experience.


At any rate, the PRC is quite different from the others you mentioned it its treatment of non-Han nationalities. While the other countries on that list are guilty of stripping nationalities of their identity and heritage, the PRC gives autonomy to non-Han groups and defends their self-determination.

Do you only read Chinese newspapers or something? You know apologists for all those other imperialist powers I mention, they say the same fucking thing about their capitalist-state-of-choice's ethnic "minorities".


All nations reflect as much, because nations are not bound by borders. Countries are. Just as Bavaria is legitimately part of Germany, so too is Tibet legitimately part of China.

Again with the semantic BS, comrade? OK, let's use your definitions. I am for all "nations" but wish to destroy "countries" such as China because they are geographic entities defined by the territorial standings of centralized, industrialized totalitarian empires rooted in wage labor and other forms of exploitation. The only "legitimacy" you can speak of in regards to anything being part of Germany or China is the legitimacy of brute force.

They aren't pointless. Stealth bombers were instrumental in the two invasions of Iraq, aircraft carriers are often used in many ways (they're presently used to intimidate Iran, China and other countries). [/quote]

But not stealth bombers with cloaking device that can fly at five times the speed of sound. Obviously all capitalist navies (including those of Iran and China) are used to "intimidate" rivals - that doesn't mean hundreds of oversized aircraft carriers are nessecary. I honestly think good submarines are better.


How so?

OK, if, for some reason, WWIII happened tomorrow, and it was the US versus EU and Russia, it would be a draw. If it was the US versus China, China would win. If it was the US versus Russia alone, Russia would lose, but would destroy so much of the US's infastructure in the process that the US would be unlikely to recover. If it was the US versus the EU, Russia, and China, the US would be totally fucked. The US cannot do whatever it wants. It does not "call the shots". It's an empire in the decline, even more so than the EU, Russia, and China are. (Which they are, as well, just less rapidly)

The US have never been "unparalleled". The US was paralleled by the old European powers up until their complete decline, which was around the time of the emergence of the Soviet Union, which paralleled the US throughout most of the 20th century, until its collapsed. Now the US is paralleled by the EU, the Russian Federation, and the PRC, and, as I've said, India and Brazil aren't looking bad at all.


I was speaking on an international level, and the most imminent threat to the workers of all countries is American imperialism.

So what does that mean for the workers of Iran? That, if they see their fellow workers throwing stones at the Iranian cops, they should help the cops violently supress them? That they should support Achmenijad because he "stands up to US imperialism" in the imaginations of Fox News and psychotic American Stalinists?


I've explained this before on many threads. It is perfectly reasonable and positive for Iranian communists to agitate within and without these demonstrations, and we should applaud them for actively propagating revolutionary politics during this period. However, their involvement does not make the entire situation anything but what it is: a struggle between two factions within the Islamic Republic, and an opportunity for American imperialism to reenforce its control over Iran.

But you're choosing to ignore the true character of the conflict and its participants. Do you honestly think the vast majority of rioters and demonstrators are Zionists, Mousavi fans, and CIA pawns? How many of the rioters in the photographs and videos are wearing green, the color of the official opposition? How many are wearing black, the traditional color of communism and anarchism? You're making it sound like the Iranian proletariat has been suckered by US propaganda into starting an uprising. The only one who has been suckered by US propaganda is you, for believing John McCain's fantasy regarding the nature of the Iranian revolt.


I never said they were infallible, I said they were a threat. Even when the screw up, they murder a million or so Iraqis, so I'm not sure how it matters to workers all that much.

Of course it does. For every murdered Iraqi, twenty friends and family members are permanantly pissed off at US imperialism. That matters a lot, to both the US imperialists, the Islamist right-populists, and us.


When I see the EU flag flying over an invaded and oppressed country, I'll reconsider my position.

So a country has to "fly its flag" over another country in order for that country to be, generally speaking, oppressed? I guess all of Africa isn't oppressed then...


Not on the situation at hand. Read my post again, you have a lot to gain from it.

Of course, because you know from your seance that Marx and Engels agree with your position on the situation at hand


You act as if the Japanese economy isn't facing a whole lot of trouble. [...] Japanese capitalists are up sh*t creek with no paddle.

It is, and they are, but the Japanese capitalists know how to survive. Obama knows how to survive too, but the hole America has dug itself into is too deep for even his long arms to reach out of.


A catastrophe is when a Pakistani family is forced to flee its home because of American drones.

Why are you making an ethical argument against the murder of Pakistanis by American drones? I consider it a profound insult that you would even deem such an argument necessary. Obviously the US is trying to gain the upper hand in the East Afghanistan/West Pakistan reigon, and obviously they are willing to kill random people to do that, as they always have, and obviously this is a direct and immediate threat to all individual workers involved, and thus workers as a class. That does not prove that the US is vastly more powerful than every other force on Earth, that it calls all the shots, or that it is such an immense threat that we must, for some unexplained reason, sympathize with Ahmanidejad, the DPRK, the Chavez-Morales-Castro triad, and the PRC


That's precisely what I'm talking about; the only EU troops in Afghanistan are there at the express behest of American imperialism

So? The strength of an imperialist power is measured by how many troops it has on the ground? And specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also, they're there at "the behest" of their own interests? Do you literally think the Americans are forcing the Europeans to be in Afghanistan?


The US president is wavering on every issue from healthcare to gay rights.

There's a difference between wavering and paying lip service. Obama knows his policies on healthcare and gay marriage are vital to the interior stability of the US state. When you're getting your paper tiger ass whooped by Islamist punks overseas, you don't want gay liberationists bombing police stations and mass-demonstrations spurred by the fact that your government doesn't even pretend to care enough to provide the masses with basic health-care.


First, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Chile are in South America;

Well, yeah, the South American Union is an embryonic imperialist superpower. Practically a zygote. Gotta crawl before you walk


the US cares about what Mexico says, it doesn't mean they're oppressed by them.

Yeah, but Mexico is obviously the "*****" in the situation. Brazil isn't anybody's "*****" at this point, not even the US's.


Pakistan borders China and India, and has fought with India on multiple occassions. As far as the EU and Russia, American influence far outweighs them in Pakistan.

American military presence outweighs that of the EU and Russia in Pakistan. That's the only factor you seem to want to focus on. Probably your "anti-war" indoctrinaton


The US is occupying Iraq BECAUSE it was able to do what it wanted, where it wanted

OK, so President Obama goes schizo and decides to launch a full-scale invasion of Portugal. Would France and Germany still let US do whatever it wanted, or would they nuke the shit out of the entire continent of North America?


We're talking about Iran, which is happening in 2009, not 2030. Do try to keep up.

If we support Iran against alleged US imperialism in 2009, we might end up having to fight the Iranian empire in 2030. Given your short-sightedness, you're the one failing to keep up.


The people of China have decided that the PRC's treatment of its various nationalities is positive:

:laugh::laugh: What, did they vote on it? :laugh::laugh:


during the capitalist propaganda blitz in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics

The only capitalist propaganda blitz that occurred during the Beijing Olympics was the propaganda blitz conducted by the capitalist Olympic Committee and its sponsors (eg: Coca-Cola) to try to white-wash over the proletarian struggle against the 2008 Olympics and the war waged by the PRC against all segments of the underclass in preparation for the obscene capitalist spectacle that is the Olympics. What, were all those anti-Olympic protesters CIA holograms like the 747 that hit the World Trade Center?


Chinese people of all nationalities, both inside and outside the PRC, defended the PRC from this slander that you're now regurgitating.

Yeah, lots of blacks and Mexicans and Puerto Ricans love America too, and would be willing to say it on TV. Live in reality, not the fantasy-world of the Chinese mass-media


The Basques had to fight for that autonomy tooth-and-nail, and even then the Spanish government gave it up only grudgingly. That's a big difference.

No, it isn't. Replace "The Basques" with "The Tibetans" and "Spanish" with "Chinese" and you've summed up the history of Sino-Tibetan relations over the past 50 years.


And I'm not a Maoist

Oh god, you're not one of those "pure" Stalinists, are you?


just like you're not a student of Marx.

I read Marx. Do you?


The term "Chinese" is not insulting, and it's incredibly insensitive for you to suggest it is.

Insensitive to whom? The fat-heads who believe in the political projects of the Chinese capitalist state? Seriously, what's so great about China, as a concept. Why is it any better than the US, as a concept? Because it's older?


And I personally know plenty of Chinese people from China

Wow, that's such an accomplishment. They're so rare. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Latinos are scorned and attacked simply for speaking their own language

You mean the exact same thing that happens to Tibetans in Chinese-occupied Tibet, often by police officers? Golly!


blacks are denied any form of control over their own communities

Uhh...the black bourgeoisie has almost-total control over "its" community.


that's not even addressing the capitalist police.

The capitalist police that also exist in Tibet? As I said, half a million cops, at least, in a country of five million. What a democratic, socialist paradise!


Malcolm X once said you can't have capitalism without racism, and history shows him to be correct.

And the Han supremacist state-capitalist PRC proves Malcolm X to be correct.


That, more than anything else, shows that nationalities in the US ARE being stripped of their identity.

No, they are not being stripped of their identity. They're having their identity co-opted and colonized. Just like the Tibetans are by the "multicultural" Chinese state, the Sino-Tibetan tourist industry, and Western yuppies in love with a fictitious hippie Tibet.


Exactly as you said: plastic, distorted versions of heritages and identities.

Just like all the ethnic "minorities" get in China!


Try showing some evidence of that in the PRC.

Uhh...the publicity campaign conducted by the Olympic Committee and the PRC during the 2008 Olympics (which you apparently fell for) is a good example. Uighar, Tibetan, or Mongolian cultural identity is a good thing as long as it supports the hegemony of the Chinese state.


Bavarians are German. Hessians are German. Ask anyone on the street of Frankfurt-am-Main or Munich, and outside of some quasi-fascist nutbag, you'll hear the same answer.

Hessian and Bavarian nationalists are fascists. Therefore Tibet deserves to be colonized by the PRC. It's like hatha yoga, except you're contorting logic instead of your body.


"Chinese" meaning the culture and ethnicity of the Han people.

Please get it through your thick skull. Tibetans don't consider themselves Chinese. They don't even speak a Sinic language! Their language is related to Burmese! They write with a script related to Sanskrit! Tibetans have more in common with Siberians and Mongolians than they do with any of the ethnic groups traditionally considered Chinese. (traditionally, as in, before 1600. Traditionally as in 600 AD)


And most Tibetans had no part in those riots

When do "most people" have a part in any riot? Millions of people don't just riot at once


The CIA was active in Tibet and winning support. That's a historical fact.

Yeah and the CPUSA and the USSR had lots of support among blacks in the Civil Rights movement during the 50s. That's also a historical fact. It doesn't mean the Civil Rights movement was "caused" by Soviet provocateurs. It was caused by the conditions of racist imperialism


A riot has its vanguard and its agitators, as well as its causes. Your logic that no one was responsible is simply side-stepping the issue.

A) A riot does not require these things
B) Vanguards and agitators can never fully control riots, by the very nature of a riot.


Good.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Oh man, so you're a Kruschevite? This just gets better and better

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:



the greatest members of the black community [...] Paul Robeson

So if someone can sing really well, they're one of "the greatest members of the black community". Hey, just out of cuiousity, are you black?


and WE B Du Bois

WEB Du Bois also briefly supported the Japanese imperialists during WWII, and criticized Chinese and Koreans for resisting the Japanese invasion. WEB Du Bois also believed that the Reconstruction-era puppet government given to Southern Blacks by the USA was a "dictatorship of the proletariat". WEB Du Bois was also a Social Democrat whi criticized the Nat Turner approach in favor of capitalist social reforms such as asssimilation through education. Needless to say, I believe WEB Du Bois was one of the most brilliant philosophers and historians of the 19th century, but I certainly don't accept any concept as inherently valid just because it was accepted by WEB Du Bois.



The USSR wasn't imperialist

Oh yeah I forgot all the Caucasians and Ukranians and Lithuanians and Siberians and Mongolians loved being part of the "communist" Soviet state after centuries of Muskovite colonialism.


That's ludicrous. After the assassination of MLK alone, there were riots in multiple cities across the country. How many have occurred in Tibet?

A good deal. Maybe you should do some independent research on the subject instead of trying to persuade me to do it for you.


What were the demands?

Riots don't have demands. do you even know what a riot is?


Why do you believe this?


Because you said so? Because the Dalai Lama and the US media said so? Please.

If the Dalai Lama and the US media say something I'm less prone to believe it.


Oh Baby Jesus, save us from compulsory schooling!

Being forced to school is fun! Just ask the students of 19th Indian boarding schools for Canadian Indians



Save us from security measures in a border area in which a war was fought!

Ahh....CCTV cameras and police patrols are here for our "security", and to protect us from imagined external threats. Sound familiar?

Where on the planet Earth hasn't "a war" been fought? I guess we should just put CCTV cameras up everywhere so a war doesn't spontaniously break out. Oh wait, that's what CCTV cameras are there for. To prevent the class war from breaking out.


Save us from housing that shelters large numbers of people!

a.k.a. ugly, mass-produced shit. I guess Tibetans just wallowed around naked in the snow before the Chinese showed up. Stupid savages don't know a thing about architecture, after all. Just lived in mud huts like the redskins.


ZAO GAO!

Adding random Chinese phrases to the end of your arguments does not make them any less coherent, or give them any more credibility. It just makes you sound like a character in Firefly


More liberal indignation from RevLeft's Free Tibet camp.

More strawman arguments and ad hominems and guilt by association


I haven't seen polling data


but the Tibetan people are benefitting from the modernization carried out with the help of the PRC.

If by "benefitting" you mean "getting fucked in the ass".


Using your logic, we would all be a lot better if we were shut off from the world like 9th Century Europe...that would be real revolutionary.

In my opinion, we would. If only because our imperialist oppressors would have less sophisticated tools and less material resources to control us with.

But ask me, do you hold this position consistantly, or just in regards to Tibet? Did the American Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans "benefit" from the "modernization" introduced by European colonialism? What about the fuedal Palestinian state that was "modernized" by the Zionists? (They were good socialist settlers too, just like the Communist Party of China) What about India, Polynesia, Southeast Asia? Are critics of imperialism in all of these reigons "fuedal reactionaries"? Are Mexican nationalists "fuedal reactionaries" since a fuedal society existed in Meso-America prior to European colonialism?


Listen, if you don't understand why being connected to the modern world is a good thing, I suggest you read a few pages of Marx for a change, since you obviously haven't.

Contrary to Leninist brainwashing, the futurist/industrialist reading of Marx is not mandatory.


That "autonomy" was won after bitter struggles with a capitalist state;

And the Tibetans are incapable of struggle? Oh yeah, all their "struggles" are started by the CIA. I guess the Tibetans would be docile Buddhist sheep without the CIA. Not the violent, meat-eating rednecks they actually are


the Tibetan people achieved real autonomy because it was the rule, not the exception, in the PRC./quote]

If the PRC wanted to help the Tibetans achieve autonomy, they could have not invaded them in the first place....

[quote]Further, Tibet's autonomous area is above and beyond anything in Basque Country or Quebec.

Actually the Quebecois at this point are hundreds of times better off than the Tibetans in terms of direct colonial subjugation.


Ethnically and culturally, Sicily has a great amount of influence from the Arab world, and has very little in common with Milan. In fact, most Italians I've met say that northern and southern Italy might as well be two countries.

And you could fit five or six or seven Italies into Tibet, at least. Did you know that there are actually Tibetan ethnic sub-groups?


Even more importantly, however, other provinces of the PRC, such as Guizhou and Hunan, speak Tibeto-Burman languages as well. So your argument here comes to nothing.

No, it would only come to nothing, if I accepted the premise that the people living in the Guizhou and Hunan provinces were not also subjects of Chinese capitalism. I never admitted such a thing. All people living within the borders of the PRC are oppressed by the capitalist Chinese regime.


I say the exact same to you, and in the meantime, I support the autonomy of the Tibetan people within the PRC.

And what if the Tibetans don't find "autonomy within the PRC" acceptable? Are they just screwed? Should they just accept the fact that they're better off because someone who doesn't even live in Tibet says so?


Thus, in a revolutionary society, this broader identification of "German" will not and should not be somehow forgotten or thrown to the side.

Because in your idea of a "revolutionary society" the capitalist state is maintained. You yourself admitted there's little cultural difference between Northern and Southern Italians. Will they be forced to consider each other "fellow Italians" after your revolution, just because they used to be subjects of the Italian capitalist state?



They got as far as Poland, the Magyars got farther but in the end settled in present-day Hungary. The Mongols really conquered Russia, and their dominion there was one of the longest-lasting of its empire. The shared history between Russians and Mongolians continues today, and Russia and Mongolia have had close relations for some time.

So let's outlaw Russian and force all the Muskovites to learn Mongolian. That'd actually be funny as hell.



Wrong again. The Qing Dynasty's incorporation of Tibet into its borders marks when Tibet and China began a shared history and a shared political entity. This is not "good" or "bad", it is simply a historical fact, and its legacy remains with us today.

And the first Japanese invasion of Korea, which happened aproximately 1500-1800 years ago, "began a shared history" between Japan and Korea. That doesn't mean that Koreans consider themselves Japanese. Koreans would shoot you if you called them Japanese. Tibetans feel the same way about China. I guess people get pissed off when they get invaded over and over again. Fascinating.



Just like the many Central Asian peoples' relations with Russia have forged a common history, so too has China (then ruled, coincidentally enough, by a Manchurian dynastic line) been intertwined with Tibet for many centuries.

You could say the same thing about Europe and Africa, or about Europeans and American Indians.


Make a point.

My point is that you don't seem to believe in neo-colonialism, or that at the very least you are totally incapable of identifying it within the context of the Chinese state.


Do you know any Han Chinese?

Yeah, of course. There's lots of Han Chinese where I live. If a Han Chinese told me the Tibetan people were free and autonomous under Chinese rule, I wouldn't assume she knew what she was talking about. I would assume she was a fucking bigot, because that's what she would be.


I've met Tibetans, yes

And did you discuss politics with them? Did you share your interesting theories about Tibet with them? If you did, I doubt you still have all your teeth


And it's simply a coincidence that your rhetoric marches with the Free Tibet camp?

No it doesn't. The "Free Tibet camp" wants a neo-colonial Tibetan state, governed by a Tibetan police force, with a Tibetan capitalist class, industrial development of Tibet's natural resources for the alleged "benefit" of Tibetans, and basically the transformation of Tibet into a tourist playground for bourgeois hippies. I want Tibetans to destroy China and create a communist society, like the communist socities many of them enjoyed before being colonized by the Chinese


Like I said, then you should condemn his followers' rhetoric in the same manner.

The problem is that you define everyone who doesn't believe the Tibetans benefit from Chinese occupation as a follower of the Dalai Lama. Most Tibetan anti-imperialists (oh yeah, "there's no such thing as Chinese imperialism") hate the Dalai Lama for being a neo-colonial pacifist parasite.


Not when every nation in the PRC has guaranteed rights.

What sort of bullshit "rights"? The "right" to have your name printed in the Tibetan script on your Chinese national-ID card? The "right" to have a prayer scroll hanging on the door of your slum? The "right to free speech as long as you're not stupid enough not to use it"? The "right" to have the shit beaten out of you by bigoted Han Chinese cops if you step out of line? The "right" to have your entire country turned into Nevada on a much larger scale?


Minority nationalities are exempt from the One-Child Policy

Wow, the "right" to have lots of babies who get to grow up to be wage-slaves. Awesome!


they recieve preferential economic development

Do you have any sources for this other than state-run Chinese media or Marxist-Leninists in the US?

Next you'll tell me blacks have "preferental economic development" in the US because of vouchers and affirmative action.


they are guaranteed the right to use and develop distinct traditions and languages and more.

American Indians have that right in the US. Virtually every indigenous ethnic group in advanced capitalist states has that right, in theory, as long as the "distinct traditions" don't come in conflict with the state.


So no, it's not on paper, the "oppression" is just on paper: imperialist newspapers.

I guess all the Tibetans who think they are oppressed have been reading too many American newspapers


Good thing the PRC doesn't follow such terrible policies.

Yes, they do. Tibet is policed by China. Tibet is not allowed a military that functions autonomously from the military of China. Tibet's resources are used to enrich the Chinese state. Tibetans have no real autonomy, Just like the Mohawks. Just like the Palestinians. How else do you account for the fact that virtually none of the police in Tibet are ethnic Tibetans?


Well, "your book" is comically incorrect. Marx clashed with the anarchists on a variety of issues,


eventually expelling them from the First International in 1873 (when he was writings his "later works").

Again, this had more to do with inter-party ego-clashes and sectarianism than ideological incompatibility.


Never heard of "the Invisible Committee",

That's because you don't want to pay attention to any actually relevant struggles occuring in the world right now. You'd only rather pay attention to the dogmas of your irrelevant BS sect.


Marx was the founder of communist thought, and his writings remain the foundation of its principles along with Engels'.

So if Marx and Engels had never been born, there would be no communism. The material interests of the workers would not stand in contradiction to the material interests of the bourgeoisie. Had Marx's mother performed an abortion, the proletariat wouldn't have nothing to lose but their chains. Societies that have never heard of Marx cannot be communist. Movements that aren't directly descended from the writings of Karl Marx cannot be communist.


Such hatred blinds a rational analysis of the situation.

Such hatred is informed by rational analysis of the sitatuin


Whatever the answers to the questions facing the Chinese proletariat, it is clear that they lie inside, not outside, the membership of the Communist Party of China.

If Jim Jones offered you the Kool-Aid, you'd drink it, wouldn't you?

[manic expression]

Could you do me a favor? Could you give me a list of the books you've read on the subject of the Soviet Union? Or the number of people who lived under the Soviet Union, or whose parents or grandparents lived under the Soviet Union, that you have talked to? Because I'm starting to assume you're one of those people whose only academic knowlege of conditions under the Soviet Union comes from reading Stalin - with all due resect to your intelligence. It doesn't hurt to read books by people whose ideologies are different than your own, you know....

Off the top of my head:

Armageddon Averted, Century of Ambivalence, parts of Arch Getty's work, parts of Conquest's work, GWU's documents on involvement in Afghanistan.

I also had a very interesting conversation with a woman who grew up in the Soviet Union during the 70's, moved to the US in the 80's, and now travels back to Russia when she can. Her words? "Life is much harder now".

And I'm friends with Russians, but they have few memories of the USSR. They still tell me about the problems of alcoholism, etc.


Western Europe is no more dependent on the economic health of the American market than the US is on the Western European argument. You keep making this stale argument, expecting it to be more effective. As has been explained time and time again by both myself and Miles, we live in a global capitalist system. Capitalist nation-states are dependent upon each other. That doesn't mean the US is omnipotent. Can you imagine how dependent the US is on the health of the African, Asian, Latin American, and Mid-Eastern markets?You haven't explained anything, you're side-stepping around the fact that the German economy is hitched to the American economy, not the other way around. Both are connected, as mutual connection is inherent in any connection, but one determines the fate of the other, and the present economic crisis proves this in spades.

I never said the US is omnipotent, please stop misrepresenting my arguments.


Oh goodness. Where do you actually get this stuff from? Was every intra-imperialist conflict involving the US caused by the US? Did Roosevelt orchestrate Pearl Harbor? What about Lucetania?I've already pointed out 1956 as the turning point which made the US the leader in the imperialist camp. Both those happened earlier.

Nevertheless, if you don't believe Sakashvilli is a US puppet, you're lost. The Georgian military was getting trained and equipped by Israeli advisors; who do you think's behind Israel?


If you're going to spring a semanting argument on me, I'm going to need another smoke. A country is a geographic area, whereas a nation is a group of people with a shared linguistic and cultural experience.A country also implies a state, but no big deal.


Do you only read Chinese newspapers or something? You know apologists for all those other imperialist powers I mention, they say the same fucking thing about their capitalist-state-of-choice's ethnic "minorities".You'll have to do better than that. I've already shown that the US' treatment of minorities doesn't come anywhere near the progressive policies of the PRC. I've given multiple reasons for this, and yet you compare me to a capitalist. That doesn't fly.


Again with the semantic BS, comrade? OK, let's use your definitions. I am for all "nations" but wish to destroy "countries" such as China because they are geographic entities defined by the territorial standings of centralized, industrialized totalitarian empires rooted in wage labor and other forms of exploitation. The only "legitimacy" you can speak of in regards to anything being part of Germany or China is the legitimacy of brute force.OK, but Germany and China are, at present, legitimate identities, wouldn't you agree?


But not stealth bombers with cloaking device that can fly at five times the speed of sound. Obviously all capitalist navies (including those of Iran and China) are used to "intimidate" rivals - that doesn't mean hundreds of oversized aircraft carriers are nessecary. I honestly think good submarines are better.The ability to hit enemy targets with a very small chance of having a loss of life or material is quite indispensable. Sure, stealth technology is getting pushed further and further, but it's for a purpose, and that purpose is definitely useful to the imperialists. The navies of Iran and China don't have the capacity to sustain a significant bombardment of countries on the other side of the world; aircraft carriers provide that capacity. It's no surprise that China was trying to get a modern aircraft carrier a year or two ago (I don't know if they're succeeding on that), it's because such a ship expands the operational ability of a military by leaps and bounds.

Submarines can fire missiles and the like, they can't have entire squadrons fly out, hit their targets, come back and do it again.


OK, if, for some reason, WWIII happened tomorrow, and it was the US versus EU and Russia, it would be a draw. If it was the US versus China, China would win. If it was the US versus Russia alone, Russia would lose, but would destroy so much of the US's infastructure in the process that the US would be unlikely to recover. If it was the US versus the EU, Russia, and China, the US would be totally fucked. The US cannot do whatever it wants. It does not "call the shots". It's an empire in the decline, even more so than the EU, Russia, and China are. (Which they are, as well, just less rapidly)I don't like to play counterfactuals. What's clear is that the US military is the greatest threat to the working class, and that's just a fact of the moment. Even you conceded you're trying to talk about what might happen 20 years from now. I'm dealing with today.


The US have never been "unparalleled". The US was paralleled by the old European powers up until their complete decline, which was around the time of the emergence of the Soviet Union, which paralleled the US throughout most of the 20th century, until its collapsed. Now the US is paralleled by the EU, the Russian Federation, and the PRC, and, as I've said, India and Brazil aren't looking bad at all.I had no idea the US wasn't the main power of NATO. Huh. I had no idea the UK didn't follow every single foreign policy initiative of the US.

The Soviet Union wasn't an imperialist power, so the fact that it rivalled and paralelled US power just shows how effective socialism can be.


So what does that mean for the workers of Iran? That, if they see their fellow workers throwing stones at the Iranian cops, they should help the cops violently supress them? That they should support Achmenijad because he "stands up to US imperialism" in the imaginations of Fox News and psychotic American Stalinists?Read the PSL's statement. Find where it says socialists should support Ahmedinejad.


But you're choosing to ignore the true character of the conflict and its participants. Do you honestly think the vast majority of rioters and demonstrators are Zionists, Mousavi fans, and CIA pawns? How many of the rioters in the photographs and videos are wearing green, the color of the official opposition? How many are wearing black, the traditional color of communism and anarchism? You're making it sound like the Iranian proletariat has been suckered by US propaganda into starting an uprising. The only one who has been suckered by US propaganda is you, for believing John McCain's fantasy regarding the nature of the Iranian revolt.The Iranian proletariat has no leadership in these demonstrations. The working-class parties are propagating among them, but they aren't leading them. The leaders, those who have the most to gain from them, are as reactionary or more reactionary than the present regime. I never said the protests were started by the CIA, or that the protesters are plants; I've pointed out the basic mathematics of the struggle to counter the wishful thinking of many leftists.

As far as wearing black is concerned, the ayatollahs wear black, too, so I think you aren't taking Iranian culture into account here.


Of course it does. For every murdered Iraqi, twenty friends and family members are permanantly pissed off at US imperialism. That matters a lot, to both the US imperialists, the Islamist right-populists, and us.I meant that the US imperialists' mistakes don't make their actions any less threatening to the working class. That was pretty clear from the context.


So a country has to "fly its flag" over another country in order for that country to be, generally speaking, oppressed? I guess all of Africa isn't oppressed then...Wait, which imperialist country has a new military command center in Africa called AFRICOM (IIRC)?

It's not Japan, it's not France, it's not Germany, it's not Canada, it's not Russia and it's definitely not Benelux.


Of course, because you know from your seance that Marx and Engels agree with your position on the situation at handIt's about applying their method of scientific, materialist analysis to the present day. That's what all of Marxism is about.


It is, and they are, but the Japanese capitalists know how to survive. Obama knows how to survive too, but the hole America has dug itself into is too deep for even his long arms to reach out of.Conjecture without support.


Why are you making an ethical argument against the murder of Pakistanis by American drones? I consider it a profound insult that you would even deem such an argument necessary. Obviously the US is trying to gain the upper hand in the East Afghanistan/West Pakistan reigon, and obviously they are willing to kill random people to do that, as they always have, and obviously this is a direct and immediate threat to all individual workers involved, and thus workers as a class. That does not prove that the US is vastly more powerful than every other force on Earth, that it calls all the shots, or that it is such an immense threat that we must, for some unexplained reason, sympathize with Ahmanidejad, the DPRK, the Chavez-Morales-Castro triad, and the PRCIt's insulting to point out precisely what you're ignoring? You just said that China, Russia and the EU influence Pakistan, while I pointed out that Pakistani workers are being hunted in real life by US imperialism. Which is a greater threat to workers? Exactly my point.


So? The strength of an imperialist power is measured by how many troops it has on the ground? And specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also, they're there at "the behest" of their own interests? Do you literally think the Americans are forcing the Europeans to be in Afghanistan?In terms of how much it threatens workers, yes, troops on the ground are of incredible importance, because they do the shooting, and they draw from the ranks of American poor to do so.

You think the EU countries would be in Afghanistan without the US invasion?


There's a difference between wavering and paying lip service. Obama knows his policies on healthcare and gay marriage are vital to the interior stability of the US state. When you're getting your paper tiger ass whooped by Islamist punks overseas, you don't want gay liberationists bombing police stations and mass-demonstrations spurred by the fact that your government doesn't even pretend to care enough to provide the masses with basic health-care.That may be so, but the fact remains that the electoral promises made by Obama, the ones that are vital to the legitimacy of the Democratic Party itself, have been tossed aside because Obama isn't the politician everyone thought he was. Healthcare reform, even one simply for lip-service and the illusion of improvement, could have been accomplished by now without a sweat; the American workers are now getting impatient and tired of the same old excuses, which I think is wonderful.

And yet this doesn't change how Israel is testing Obama. Obama said no more settlements, Israel built more settlements. The Zionists have many allies in Washington, and they're trying to play them against the administration.


Well, yeah, the South American Union is an embryonic imperialist superpower. Practically a zygote. Gotta crawl before you walkMore crystal-ball analyses. I'll deal with the present, thank you.


Yeah, but Mexico is obviously the "*****" in the situation. Brazil isn't anybody's "*****" at this point, not even the US's.Just like the UK is the US' "*****" (as you put it) in every foreign policy issue since 1956.


American military presence outweighs that of the EU and Russia in Pakistan. That's the only factor you seem to want to focus on. Probably your "anti-war" indoctrinatonYes, because it's the only factor that actually kills Pakistani workers. That's what matters most to the Pakistani working class, and so that's what matters most to me.


OK, so President Obama goes schizo and decides to launch a full-scale invasion of Portugal. Would France and Germany still let US do whatever it wanted, or would they nuke the shit out of the entire continent of North America?Counterfactuals.


If we support Iran against alleged US imperialism in 2009, we might end up having to fight the Iranian empire in 2030. Given your short-sightedness, you're the one failing to keep up.We MIGHT end up being ruled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in 2100. We MIGHT get hit by an asteroid. We MIGHT find life on Mars.

When any of those things actually seem possible, let me know. Until then, I'll be supporting the actual interests of actual workers. If you were a Marxist you'd do the same.


:laugh::laugh: What, did they vote on it? :laugh::laugh:I mentioned the reaction to bourgeois rhetoric in 2008.


The only capitalist propaganda blitz that occurred during the Beijing Olympics was the propaganda blitz conducted by the capitalist Olympic Committee and its sponsors (eg: Coca-Cola) to try to white-wash over the proletarian struggle against the 2008 Olympics and the war waged by the PRC against all segments of the underclass in preparation for the obscene capitalist spectacle that is the Olympics. What, were all those anti-Olympic protesters CIA holograms like the 747 that hit the World Trade Center?No, those anti-Olympic protesters were liberal hypocrites. I was in contact with many people from the PRC and many of Chinese descent who fully supported China against the capitalist slander it faced. The Free Tibet camp was full of liberals, just in case you wanted to compare and contrast.


Yeah, lots of blacks and Mexicans and Puerto Ricans love America too, and would be willing to say it on TV. Live in reality, not the fantasy-world of the Chinese mass-mediaIn reality, the PRC's policies to its nationalities is far more progressive than that of the US. I've already explained why.


No, it isn't. Replace "The Basques" with "The Tibetans" and "Spanish" with "Chinese" and you've summed up the history of Sino-Tibetan relations over the past 50 years.I wasn't aware that the Basques were living in a feudalist society before the 1950's. I wasn't aware that the PRC machine-gunned Tibetans for target practice as a warm-up to World War II. Don't be silly.


Oh god, you're not one of those "pure" Stalinists, are you?The last thing I'll worry about is an anarchist calling me a "'pure' Stalinist".


I read Marx. Do you?Yes, especially when him and Engels refuted the claims of anarchists.


Insensitive to whom? The fat-heads who believe in the political projects of the Chinese capitalist state? Seriously, what's so great about China, as a concept. Why is it any better than the US, as a concept? Because it's older?Chinese "patriotism" (as I'm sure you'd call it) has not been used for imperialist ends. Saying "God Bless America" when you're making racist attacks is one thing, saying "Patria o Muerte" when you're defending a socialist society against imperialist aggression is another.


Wow, that's such an accomplishment. They're so rare. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:What, exactly, is that supposed to mean?

And speaking to citizens of the PRC on their views and hopes and opinions is, in my opinion, quite insightful. I'd appreciate it if you didn't mock such an exchange.


You mean the exact same thing that happens to Tibetans in Chinese-occupied Tibet, often by police officers? Golly!Please post a source, and remember that Tibetans are benefitting from a number of PRC policies. I've outlined them before.


Uhh...the black bourgeoisie has almost-total control over "its" community.Wrong. The capitalist police have total control over black communities. The black bourgeoisie don't usually own businesses in black neighborhoods.


The capitalist police that also exist in Tibet? As I said, half a million cops, at least, in a country of five million. What a democratic, socialist paradise!The PRC isn't capitalist, so it would be difficult to say its police is, as well.


And the Han supremacist state-capitalist PRC proves Malcolm X to be correct.That's a new one. Funny how the PRC gives preferential treatment to non-Han nationalities, and yet they're "Han supremacist". Can you show me an ounce of rhetoric from the PRC that suggests such an ideology? Have fun with that.


No, they are not being stripped of their identity. They're having their identity co-opted and colonized. Just like the Tibetans are by the "multicultural" Chinese state, the Sino-Tibetan tourist industry, and Western yuppies in love with a fictitious hippie Tibet.Conjecture without support. Tibetan culture is not being destroyed by those mean old "Chinese people", it's being integrated into a larger community of nationalities, all with their own traditions and cultures. Where's your indignation over the supposed destruction of Manchurian or Cantonese or Mongol culture in the PRC? Oh, right, you wouldn't have the rhetorical umbrella of the capitalist Free Tibet camp for that.


Just like all the ethnic "minorities" get in China!...in your, and the Free Tibet camp's, imagination.


Uhh...the publicity campaign conducted by the Olympic Committee and the PRC during the 2008 Olympics (which you apparently fell for) is a good example. Uighar, Tibetan, or Mongolian cultural identity is a good thing as long as it supports the hegemony of the Chinese state.Yeah, I "fell for it", just like everyone I know who lives in the country and can see when China is being slandered by imperialists once again.

The Chinese state does provide for Uighur, Tibetan and Mongolian cultural identity, and that's why it's progressive. It's "hegemony" frustrates and refutes imperialist advances to subjugate the people of China like it did before the revolution.


Hessian and Bavarian nationalists are fascists. Therefore Tibet deserves to be colonized by the PRC. It's like hatha yoga, except you're contorting logic instead of your body.You're forgetting that the vast majority of Bavarians and Hessians will consider themselves German, something you've railed against this entire time. Remember when you said that "Germany" should be destroyed?


Please get it through your thick skull. Tibetans don't consider themselves Chinese. They don't even speak a Sinic language! Their language is related to Burmese! They write with a script related to Sanskrit! Tibetans have more in common with Siberians and Mongolians than they do with any of the ethnic groups traditionally considered Chinese. (traditionally, as in, before 1600. Traditionally as in 600 AD)Many Mongolians DO consider themselves Chinese, as they form a non-Han nationality within the PRC. Many peoples from many locales (who don't speak Sinic languages) have been part of the shared history of China for centuries. This is why "China" means more than the Han, and that's precisely what you can't understand.


When do "most people" have a part in any riot? Millions of people don't just riot at onceThey usually do it for some sort of reason. Like when a candidate to the right of the present president thinks he should've won. Like when an ayatollah who's among the country's richest thinks he can maneuver his way to the position of the supreme leader.


Yeah and the CPUSA and the USSR had lots of support among blacks in the Civil Rights movement during the 50s. That's also a historical fact. It doesn't mean the Civil Rights movement was "caused" by Soviet provocateurs. It was caused by the conditions of racist imperialismNo, it means that the Black working class identified those who stood with them as their allies. The CPUSA was essentially the only organization which organized Blacks and demanded their liberation. The Civil Rights movement was connected to this in some ways, but it developed because of the struggles of Black workers.


A) A riot does not require these things
B) Vanguards and agitators can never fully control riots, by the very nature of a riot.It doesn't require them, but it sometimes has them. Are you saying there is working-class leadership on the part of these demonstrations? You seem to be forgetting that certain people are calling for them to happen, and they aren't workers.


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Oh man, so you're a Kruschevite? This just gets better and better

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:I have the audacity to support a socialist state, yes.

Like I said, the last thing I'll worry about is an anarchist (who's convinced Marx agrees with him) calling me a "Kruschevite".


So if someone can sing really well, they're one of "the greatest members of the black community". Hey, just out of cuiousity, are you black?Paul Robeson was one of the most remarkable men of the last century. In addition to his accomplishments as a singer, he was one of the best actors of his day, an award-winning athelete, a scholar and a singular champion of the black struggle in America.

Your arrogant dismissal of Robeson just underlines your ignorance of the struggle for liberation. Read about him, maybe you can learn from his great example.

I'd rather not discuss my background right now.


WEB Du Bois also briefly supported the Japanese imperialists during WWII, and criticized Chinese and Koreans for resisting the Japanese invasion. WEB Du Bois also believed that the Reconstruction-era puppet government given to Southern Blacks by the USA was a "dictatorship of the proletariat". WEB Du Bois was also a Social Democrat whi criticized the Nat Turner approach in favor of capitalist social reforms such as asssimilation through education. Needless to say, I believe WEB Du Bois was one of the most brilliant philosophers and historians of the 19th century, but I certainly don't accept any concept as inherently valid just because it was accepted by WEB Du Bois.Du Bois changed his politics countless times, and was arrogant about it all the time, but the fact remains that he became a believer in what the Soviet Union could offer Blacks in America after seeing the USSR first-hand. IIRC, he remained as much until his death.


Oh yeah I forgot all the Caucasians and Ukranians and Lithuanians and Siberians and Mongolians loved being part of the "communist" Soviet state after centuries of Muskovite colonialism.Read up on the Soviet approach to the national question. They made every effort to respect and promote self-determination of all its nationalities.


A good deal. Maybe you should do some independent research on the subject instead of trying to persuade me to do it for you.I didn't ask for an approximation, I asked for something concrete.


Riots don't have demands. do you even know what a riot is?Then these aren't riots. They want the election to be annulled. Who's "they", you ask? The leadership of the protests, the people who are calling for the demonstrations, the ones you keep forgetting because it doesn't fit into your wishful thinking paradime.


If the Dalai Lama and the US media say something I'm less prone to believe it.Perhaps, but the opposite seems true.


Being forced to school is fun! Just ask the students of 19th Indian boarding schools for Canadian IndiansNice strawman. Any evidence to suggest the two are comparable? While you're at it, why don't you dismiss school as bad one more time? I mean, I can see your point, reading is soooo overrated.


Ahh....CCTV cameras and police patrols are here for our "security", and to protect us from imagined external threats. Sound familiar?It isn't an imagined threat when foreign intererence is a documented historical fact in the region.


Where on the planet Earth hasn't "a war" been fought? I guess we should just put CCTV cameras up everywhere so a war doesn't spontaniously break out. Oh wait, that's what CCTV cameras are there for. To prevent the class war from breaking out.India and Pakistan, IIRC, still have troops stationed on that border in significant numbers. Tibet borders one of the most volatile hotspots on the map. But keep believing that Tibet is some sort of vacuum, isolated from the larger world...or is that what you WANT Tibet to be?


a.k.a. ugly, mass-produced shit. I guess Tibetans just wallowed around naked in the snow before the Chinese showed up. Stupid savages don't know a thing about architecture, after all. Just lived in mud huts like the redskins.Oh, sweet, now you're an architecture critic. Are you going to lecture me on the aesthetic virtue of the Roman Baroque style? What of the revolutionary importance of the Market of Trajan? I'll get you glass of Merlot if you don't feel snobbish enough already.

The high-rises serve a purpose: HOUSING PEOPLE. They do a pretty good job of that.


Adding random Chinese phrases to the end of your arguments does not make them any less coherent, or give them any more credibility. It just makes you sound like a character in FireflyAi.ya, ni tai cong.ming! Keshi, ni keyi bu keyi nian wo.de bie.de zhongwen? Ni bu wo.de laoshi, dui bu dui? Xianzai, yin.wei ni xian Mousavi, wo yinggai gaosu ni dai yi.ge lu mao.zi!!!!

Oh, and I don't watch Firefly.


More strawman arguments and ad hominems and guilt by associationJust some observations, that's all.


If by "benefitting" you mean "getting fucked in the ass".Are you even trying to make a rational analysis? Read what I've written.


In my opinion, we would. If only because our imperialist oppressors would have less sophisticated tools and less material resources to control us with.And now the truth comes out. You'd rather we were living in 9th Century Europe, even though if you knew the first thing about 9th Century Europe, you'd probably know it was the most ignorant and terrible time in European history. You don't stand for progress, you stand against it. The fact that you think you're a Marxist makes this anti-progress talk even more ridiculous.


But ask me, do you hold this position consistantly, or just in regards to Tibet? Did the American Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans "benefit" from the "modernization" introduced by European colonialism? What about the fuedal Palestinian state that was "modernized" by the Zionists? (They were good socialist settlers too, just like the Communist Party of China) What about India, Polynesia, Southeast Asia? Are critics of imperialism in all of these reigons "fuedal reactionaries"? Are Mexican nationalists "fuedal reactionaries" since a fuedal society existed in Meso-America prior to European colonialism?The introduction of modern technology to colonized nations is a complicated and multi-faceted topic, something I'll address, even though I doubt your intentions. Let's get one thing straight, the "progress" of the capitalist epoch is one of coercian and bloodletting. The capitalist system is firmly among the inhumane and barbaric; the greatest difference is in its growth, it draws into its ranks its sworn enemies: the working class. In this, the improvements in technology are improvements, but they are brought for one specific purpose: exploitation. The railroad is one such improvement, as it facilitates transportation and communication, brings people closer together and makes the world smaller. These are all undoubtedly good things. However, the British colonialists did not bring the railroad to India for this purpose, they did so to make profit. This is a contradiction, as much of capitalist society is.

The point is for the workers to utilize the improvements and progress brought by the capitalists for the common enrichment of the vast majority of humanity. Capitalism is surely barbaric, but it provides humanity with the opportunity for liberation, something not possible from the contradictions of feudalism or tribalism. In this sense, Marxists deem bourgeois victories such as the Great French Revolution of 1789 as progressive, while maintaining that bourgeois society is itself backwards by the march of history.


Contrary to Leninist brainwashing, the futurist/industrialist reading of Marx is not mandatory.Nice catchphrases, how about explaining this.


And the Tibetans are incapable of struggle? Oh yeah, all their "struggles" are started by the CIA. I guess the Tibetans would be docile Buddhist sheep without the CIA. Not the violent, meat-eating rednecks they actually areTibetans, as a nation, are capable of struggle by themselves; the feudalist and reactionary element among them, however, need and want CIA support. That is what the PRC correctly guards against.

Not sure how you twisted that around so bad.


If the PRC wanted to help the Tibetans achieve autonomy, they could have not invaded them in the first place....If the PRC had not liberated the Tibetan people, they would still be living under a god-king, supported of course by the CIA. Real good plan you got there.


Actually the Quebecois at this point are hundreds of times better off than the Tibetans in terms of direct colonial subjugation.How so?


And you could fit five or six or seven Italies into Tibet, at least. Did you know that there are actually Tibetan ethnic sub-groups?You could fit ten Switzerlands into Poland. What's your point?


No, it would only come to nothing, if I accepted the premise that the people living in the Guizhou and Hunan provinces were not also subjects of Chinese capitalism. I never admitted such a thing. All people living within the borders of the PRC are oppressed by the capitalist Chinese regime.It underlines your exceptionalism for Tibet, which is founded on nothing but rhetoric.

And how is the PRC capitalist? You keep repeating this with no support.


And what if the Tibetans don't find "autonomy within the PRC" acceptable? Are they just screwed? Should they just accept the fact that they're better off because someone who doesn't even live in Tibet says so?Then they can and should (and do) engage with the CPC and PRC to fix such shortcomings.


Because in your idea of a "revolutionary society" the capitalist state is maintained. You yourself admitted there's little cultural difference between Northern and Southern Italians. Will they be forced to consider each other "fellow Italians" after your revolution, just because they used to be subjects of the Italian capitalist state?No, I pointed out that there are many differences between northern and southern Italians. Try to keep up.


So let's outlaw Russian and force all the Muskovites to learn Mongolian. That'd actually be funny as hell.Justify the comparison.


And the first Japanese invasion of Korea, which happened aproximately 1500-1800 years ago, "began a shared history" between Japan and Korea. That doesn't mean that Koreans consider themselves Japanese. Koreans would shoot you if you called them Japanese. Tibetans feel the same way about China. I guess people get pissed off when they get invaded over and over again. Fascinating.There is a shared history there, of course, but there is one signal difference between Japan and China: one is socialist, the other is capitalist. The PRC incorporates many nationalities, Japan scorns them.


You could say the same thing about Europe and Africa, or about Europeans and American Indians.Again, you're ignoring policies. What is Europe trying to do to Africa right now? What are white Americans trying to do to American Indians right now? The opposite of the PRC's policies.


My point is that you don't seem to believe in neo-colonialism, or that at the very least you are totally incapable of identifying it within the context of the Chinese state.That's because the Chinese state isn't colonialist or imperialist or neo-colonialist or any other combination thereof. You identify it as such without any sort of support.


Yeah, of course. There's lots of Han Chinese where I live. If a Han Chinese told me the Tibetan people were free and autonomous under Chinese rule, I wouldn't assume she knew what she was talking about. I would assume she was a fucking bigot, because that's what she would be.How open-minded of you.


And did you discuss politics with them? Did you share your interesting theories about Tibet with them? If you did, I doubt you still have all your teethNo, not that I recall, but I usually show tact when discussing politics with non-socialists anyway, Tibetan or otherwise.


No it doesn't. The "Free Tibet camp" wants a neo-colonial Tibetan state, governed by a Tibetan police force, with a Tibetan capitalist class, industrial development of Tibet's natural resources for the alleged "benefit" of Tibetans, and basically the transformation of Tibet into a tourist playground for bourgeois hippies. I want Tibetans to destroy China and create a communist society, like the communist socities many of them enjoyed before being colonized by the ChineseAnd your rhetoric differs from theirs how?


The problem is that you define everyone who doesn't believe the Tibetans benefit from Chinese occupation as a follower of the Dalai Lama. Most Tibetan anti-imperialists (oh yeah, "there's no such thing as Chinese imperialism") hate the Dalai Lama for being a neo-colonial pacifist parasite.See previous answer.


What sort of bullshit "rights"? The "right" to have your name printed in the Tibetan script on your Chinese national-ID card? The "right" to have a prayer scroll hanging on the door of your slum? The "right to free speech as long as you're not stupid enough not to use it"? The "right" to have the shit beaten out of you by bigoted Han Chinese cops if you step out of line? The "right" to have your entire country turned into Nevada on a much larger scale?I laid out some of those rights before, do try to read them.


Wow, the "right" to have lots of babies who get to grow up to be wage-slaves. Awesome!More meaningless indignation. If you don't accept it when someone lays out concrete legal and practical benefits shown to the non-Han peoples of the PRC, then I can't help you. Shoving your fingers in your ears isn't an argument, and that's essentially what you're doing right now.


Do you have any sources for this other than state-run Chinese media or Marxist-Leninists in the US?With this we can see that China places great importance on the role of culture within society, where this importance has been carried over onto the question of Tibet - the Chinese recognize the need for the preservation of Tibetan culture.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-macbain/heads-of-state-must-be-aw_b_96824.html

There's more if you want it.


Next you'll tell me blacks have "preferental economic development" in the US because of vouchers and affirmative action.Empty promises compared to the PRC's policies.


American Indians have that right in the US. Virtually every indigenous ethnic group in advanced capitalist states has that right, in theory, as long as the "distinct traditions" don't come in conflict with the state.They are also forced into a state of perpetual deprivation and desperation. Not so in Tibet. Don't even try to compare the genocidal treatment of American Indians to the PRC's policies in Tibet just to further your agenda, it's really quite absurd.


I guess all the Tibetans who think they are oppressed have been reading too many American newspapersPerhaps they should read the link I posted above.


Yes, they do. Tibet is policed by China. Tibet is not allowed a military that functions autonomously from the military of China. Tibet's resources are used to enrich the Chinese state. Tibetans have no real autonomy, Just like the Mohawks. Just like the Palestinians. How else do you account for the fact that virtually none of the police in Tibet are ethnic Tibetans?Having a police force does not contribute to your point. Not having a Tibetan military does not contribute to your point. Having resources used by the state one belongs to does not contribute to your point.

Your shameless comparisons, done without justification, don't contribute to your point.


Again, this had more to do with inter-party ego-clashes and sectarianism than ideological incompatibility.Right. Except Marx and Engels clashed on the whole idea of what a revolutionary should establish. More wishful thinking.


That's because you don't want to pay attention to any actually relevant struggles occuring in the world right now. You'd only rather pay attention to the dogmas of your irrelevant BS sect.The relevant struggle is against US imperialism. That's what you can't stand.


So if Marx and Engels had never been born, there would be no communism. The material interests of the workers would not stand in contradiction to the material interests of the bourgeoisie. Had Marx's mother performed an abortion, the proletariat wouldn't have nothing to lose but their chains. Societies that have never heard of Marx cannot be communist. Movements that aren't directly descended from the writings of Karl Marx cannot be communist.Counterfactuals once again! I deal with reality: in reality, Marx wrote what Marx wrote, and Marx's writings had the impact that they had.

Deal with that, not your treasured counterfactuals.


Such hatred is informed by rational analysis of the sitatuinIf only it were so.


If Jim Jones offered you the Kool-Aid, you'd drink it, wouldn't you?Why go to Jim Jones when you can get some from the Free Tibet camp?

[manic expression]

You have yet to demonstrate where I've been hypocritical. All you've demonstrated is that, when it comes to insults, you can dish it out but you can't take it (especially when it comes from an uppity worker).

The proof is right there. You tried to play the insult game and then you decried it. You tried to insult me and then you cried foul when you couldn't come up with anything clever.

In the interest of fairness, I'll let your own words do the talking:

Sounds like someone should call the Waaaahmbulance for you.

Not only is it unoriginal, it's hypocritical, too!


More like "playing with the dumb". Since you're in Germany, I doubt you're in any position to either observe or pass judgment on what we are doing.

I also spend a great deal of time in the US each year, in which I'm active in politics, and even though I've seen the RCP, ISO, SP, SWP and other parties in real life, I can't say I've ever seen your party have any sort of presence whatsoever.

I ask you once more, what's your party up to again? Oh, that's right, you answered that below...


Nah. We're too busy reading Marx right now. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

Reading Marx, not applying Marx. Gotcha.


Sounds like someone should call the Waaaahmbulance for you.

Did your anarchist cheerleader come up with that for you?


You think that pissed me off? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: You really do think a lot of yourself, don't you? You're not even in my league, sport. Stop trying to play with the grown-ups.

Judging by the temper-tantrum you threw, I know that pissed you off, which means that whole irrelevance thing really hit close to home.


You remind me of a cat that runs into a window. You have this "I meant to do that" look about you, when you and everyone else knows you screwed up. There's really no point in covering your ass now. Everyone knows you blew it. You wrote about the ICC instead of the WPA, and now you're just trying to pass it off as a "simple comparison". Give me a break! Can't you admit when you make a mistake? Or are you really that arrogant? (My money is on the latter.)

Are you getting these conclusions from an 8-Ball? You were obviously too dumb to figure out what I was saying, and now you're too embarrassed to admit it. It's not surprising you couldn't figure out what I wrote, seeing as you can't figure out Marxism, either. Stay classy, big guy.


You know the old saying about assuming things. I suggest you heed it before making an even bigger ass of yourself.

This coming from the poster who thinks I own a "flat"? Once again, hypocrisy rears its head in the immature.


No, I just have fun screwing with you. It's apparently really easy to do.

So "screwing" with me means losing your temper and throwing a hissy fit when someone suggests how irrelevant your party is? I guess that's how children "screw" with adults, so it does make sense in a way.


LBJ was representative of that faction, so, yes, he knew Tonkin was contrived. Kennedy's consideration of drawing down the MAAG was criticized by those within his administration as a "betrayal of the French" (i.e., their treat commitments).

The liberal faction of the bourgeoisie, represented by Kennedy, wanted détente with the Soviet Union and saw withdrawal from Vietnam as a way to do it. They wanted to negotiate a deal with Moscow that would have the USSR and China put pressure on Hanoi to pull back their forces and end the revolt in the south -- a "Korean solution". Kennedy's American University speech was meant to be the first rhetorical "olive branch" in this diplomatic maneuver. But Kennedy's assassination took the liberal faction of the bourgeoisie out of power (and, in the longer view, out of commission).

You're tripping yourself up. First you said US imperialism went into Vietnam unwillingly, tied to treaties with the French. Now you're saying the American bourgeoisie, after the liberal faction lost influence, decided to go in on the basis of a known fabrication. Which is it?


If you want to deal with facts, you have to deal with all of them, not just the ones that fit in your doctrine.

What did you just learn about hypocrisy?

By the way, I'll get to your longer post later.

[Martin Blank]

Since 90 percent of your response is composed of personal insults, I see little point in going point-by-point through them all. Suffice to say that anyone who can read can also see that you were the first to play the insult card. I played along a little, just to see how badly it would unnerve you, and it turned you into a raging asshole. That even exceeded my expections, I'll admit.

Now you're trying to keep the flame war going because -- let's be honest -- it's the only thing that can distract from your ahistorical, mechanical, moralistic approach to this question. You got beaten, but your ego won't let you admit it. So all you can do is accuse me of "throwing a temper tantrum" (false), of being "pissed off" (false) and other personal attacks. In the process, you call me "dumb", "immature" and a number of other invectives.

All of this is more than familiar to me. What manic expression is demonstrating here is how the petty bourgeoisie responds to a challenge from someone thought to be an inferior. More to the point, this is how the petty bourgeois are trained throughout their early lives to ideologically suppress independent thoughts by working people. It's drilled into their heads at an early age, through a combination of stratified education and socialization into their class. It is, when you get down to it, an admission of his own bankruptcy.

But it's more than that. What manic has done here is expose one of the key reasons why petty-bourgeois socialism has failed in the 20th century. To put it bluntly, it's because of arrogant, self-absorbed people who may not be managers themselves, but nonetheless practice the ideological arts of management. And a central part of that ideological art is teaching workers to know their place. This is what manic is trying to do with his insults and personalism. And, again, while that might work on some, it doesn't work on me.

I'd actually like to thank manic for exposing himself as he has in this debate. He's been a quite useful idiot. I now consider this thread necessary reading for any young working-class person considering membership in the PSL (or any other petty-bourgeois socialist sect, for that matter). Young comrades: This is your future if you ever attempt to have a differing opinion from your leaders. Consider carefully the choice you make -- it may mean the difference between you participating in the movement for a lifetime or until these elements chew you up and spit you out.

With that taken care of, let me respond to the one political point our useful idiot actually raised.


First you said US imperialism went into Vietnam unwillingly, tied to treaties with the French. Now you're saying the American bourgeoisie, after the liberal faction lost influence, decided to go in on the basis of a known fabrication. Which is it?

Both. The U.S. first went in unwillingly, tied to their treaties with the French. That was in 1950. Fourteen years later, in 1964, a section of the U.S. capitalist class that wanted to widen Washington's involvement, staged Tonkin to sway petty-bourgeois "public opinion" and build enough of a consensus to expand America's military presence.

[Agrippa]

[Armageddon Averted, Century of Ambivalence, parts of Arch Getty's work, parts of Conquest's work, GWU's documents on involvement in Afghanistan.

Wow, you have a relatively critical academic background in regards to the Soviet Union, yet you've still somehow managed not to burst your fantasy of the Soviet Union as a "workers state" with no bourgeois class, exploitative labor, or capitalist control of the means of production, even extending into the 50s-70s. Sad. Yet also impressive.

Rather than rattling off a laundry-list of every single example of the USSR's demonstratively, definitely capitalist nature, I'll instead suggest you take the time to browse the USSR section of the Libcom.org library (http://libcom.org/tags/soviet-union), which conveniently archives what I believe to be most of the essential works of the libertarian anti-Soviet canon, and is a far more comprehensive list of the USSR's demonstratively, definitively capitalist nature than I could ever provide on a message board post. (And before you accuse me of only sticking to historical and analytical sources that are biased in favor of my personal ideology, I should point out that I view the technocratic, quasi-patriarchal, quasi-bureaucratic, anti-national liberationist, pro-allopathic medicine, anthropocentric, anti-spiritual, workerist, and implicity pro-Western positions held by most Libcom members to be as much of a permeation of petit-bourgeois Leftist politics, and as much of a simultaniously saddening and amusing theoretical and practical dead-end, as those of the the WWP/PSL. So much so, actually, that I laughed when I heard that a notoriously obnoxious member of the Libcom community was punched in the face at a pub by a member of the English chapter of the Anarchist Black Cross after he posted derrogitory comments about the ABC's prisoner support programs, but I digress)


I also had a very interesting conversation with a woman who grew up in the Soviet Union during the 70's, moved to the US in the 80's, and now travels back to Russia when she can. Her words? "Life is much harder now"."Life is much harder now" ≠ "The USSR was never a capitalist state". You don't have to convince me that "life is much harder now", since I am not a Gorbachev-Reagan apologist.


They still tell me about the problems of alcoholism, etc.Ah, yes. A social ill that didn't exist during the Soviet regime, much like serial murder. :rolleyes:


the fact that the German economy is hitched to the American economy, not the other way around.Which is why the Euro is a more powerful currency than the USD? Now who's side-stepping the facts?


but one determines the fate of the otherWhere do you get your economic analysis form, Jim Cramer?


I never said the US is omnipotentYou implied it, by characterizing the EU, one of the most powerful and advanced capitalist states in existence, a puppet of the US, powerless to resist American coercion. However, as comrade Miles (who I am allegedly a "cheerleader" of for refusing to bend reality to my fitting as you have done) has pointed out, the US couldn't even coerce the EU into helping with Iraq, (and shot itself in the foot trying to "punish" France and Germany) and the US actually somewhat coerced into serving Germany in Yugoslavia.


Nevertheless, if you don't believe Sakashvilli is a US puppetAh yes, "puppet-state" reductionism is always a fun manifestation of "anti-imperialist" over-simplification, Manecheanism, and windmill-tipping. I guess it's impossible for you to consider that maybe Sakashvilli has his own interests in mind, and, like all politicans, only considers whatever political alliances he's currently formed to be a matter of pragmatism and expediency.


The Georgian military was getting trained and equipped by Israeli advisors;That doesn't prove that the Georgian state is a "US puppet". Israel is basically a massive mercenary force. Israel is also essentially a "rogue state" with no inherent allegiance to the US. Israel would stab the US in the back if they needed to, and vise versa


who do you think's behind Israel?ZOG? The Elders of Zion? :rolleyes::D


A country also implies a stateAnd a state implies either feudal or capitalistic rule.


I've given multiple reasons for this, and yet you compare me to a capitalist.Your "reasoning" is the exact same as that as capitalist apologists use when dismissing the relevance of ethnic contradictions in the US or any other "Western" state. "But some [x] guy on TV says that [y] doesn't exploit [x]!", "there are members of [x] who support [y]!", "[x] is given [z bogus political "advantage"/"opportunity" that's really just a neo-colonial, totalitarian, integrationist policy with nothing inherently empowering or dignified about it]!", and so on....


OK, but Germany and China are, at present, legitimate identities, wouldn't you agree?Insofar as capitalism is legitimate, which you seem to believe


The ability to hit enemy targets with a very small chance of having a loss of life or material is quite indispensable.
Sure, stealth technology is getting pushed further and further, but it's for a purpose, and that purpose is definitely useful to the imperialists.There's a difference between basic stealth technology which makes fighters less prone to anti-aircraft weapons, versus aircraft with ridiculously excessive speeds and cloaking technologies that aren't actually needed are essentially a waste of billions of dollars.


It's no surprise that China was trying to get a modern aircraft carrier a year or two ago (I don't know if they're succeeding on that)One or two aircraft carriers is good. (From an imperialist/capitalist perspective, of course.) A fleet, though?


it's because such a ship expands the operational ability of a military by leaps and bounds.It expands the operational ability of a military, but not "by leaps and bounds". Airplanes can take off from the ground, too. Or *gasp* slightly smaller aircraft carriers.


Submarines can fire missiles and the like, they can't have entire squadrons fly out, hit their targets, come back and do it again.But you don't need aircraft carriers to do that, especially a fleet of aircraft carriers the size of small cities. That basically just makes you a sitting duck in any real naval conflict.


I don't like to play counterfactuals.Would that be too creative for your rigid Marxist-Leninist brain?


I had no idea the US wasn't the main power of NATO.It has been historically, obviously. But not necessarily anymore. In fact, NATO isn't even really relevant anymore. For someone who has allegedly read a whole book on the subject of the Soviet Union, you seem to forget easily that the Cold War is over...


I had no idea the UK didn't follow every single foreign policy initiative of the US.The UK is currently, has been for the past 30-50 years, and always will be a second-rate imperialist power. Nor is it in dispute that the UK has traditionally been the US's second-banana. Now they' have to go back and forth between being the US's second banana and the EU's, and will eventually be forced to make a final decision regarding which side they are on. If they side with the US, they'll be making the same mistake Italy and Japan did in WWII....


The Soviet Union wasn't an imperialist power, so the fact that it rivalled and paralelled US power just shows how effective socialism can be.Effective at stabilizing and modernizing capitalism. (At least, before people like Stalin and Kruschev got a hold of it and ran it into the ground)


Read the PSL's statement. Find where it says socialists should support Ahmedinejad.Opposing the Iranian uprising is the equivalent of supporting Ahmedinejad, the Ayatollah, and the Islamic Republic.


The Iranian proletariat has no leadership in these demonstrations.Good. Fuck "leadership", which, in the eyes of M-Ls such as yourself, is nothing more than a license to participate in bureaucratic oppertunism.


The leaders, those who have the most to gain from them, are as reactionary or more reactionary than the present regime.Calling Mousavi "more reactionary" than Ahmedinejad is like calling Obama "more reactionary" than McCain. The point is moot, "progressive" politicians are as dangerous as "reactionary" ones, if not more.


I never said the protests were started by the CIA, or that the protesters are plants; I've pointed out the basic mathematics of the struggle"basic mathematics" in a world where 2+2=5


As far as wearing black is concerned, the ayatollahs wear blackThey don't wear black bandannas, throw rocks at police cars and Islamist vigilantes, and shout inflammatory anti-Islamic slogans.


I meant that the US imperialists' mistakes don't make their actions any less threatening to the working class.Yes they do. That's like saying "hiring the Three Stooges for a carpentry job instead of Norm Abram will not make the structural foundation of the architecture any less sound". Imperialist mistakes are our advantages.


Wait, which imperialist country has a new military command center in Africa called AFRICOM (IIRC)?http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1707409,00.html

Fail


It's about applying their method of scientific, materialist analysis to the present day.Which the PSL has never done in any way, shape, or form.


It's insulting to point out precisely what you're ignoring?It's insulting to imply that I don't care about murdered Pakistani children because I've accepted the fact that the US is a rapidly declining imperial power which is not always "the primary threat to the working class". It's a crass appeal to emotion.


You just said that China, Russia and the EU influence Pakistan, while I pointed out that Pakistani workers are being hunted in real life by US imperialism.And starved to death by economic policies that Russia, China, and the EU have as much of a hand in as the US.


In terms of how much it threatens workers, yes, troops on the ground are of incredible importance, because they do the shooting,The Crips "do the shooting" too...are the Crips the "single most important threat to the working-class"?


and they draw from the ranks of American poor to do so.I guess as opposed to PLA soldiers who live in mansions made of gold.


You think the EU countries would be in Afghanistan without the US invasion?I thought you didn't believe in counterfactuals...


That may be so, but the fact remains that the electoral promises made by Obama, the ones that are vital to the legitimacy of the Democratic Party itself, have been tossed aside because Obama isn't the politician everyone thought he was. Healthcare reform, even one simply for lip-service and the illusion of improvement, could have been accomplished by now without a sweat; the American workers are now getting impatient and tired of the same old excuses, which I think is wonderful.Wow, now who's the "liberal"...


And yet this doesn't change how Israel is testing Obama.The fact that Israel would even want to test Obama debunks your "everything except Iran/Hamas/Al-Qaeda/DRPK/PRC/Russia/Venezula/Bolivia/Cuba/FARC is a US puppet" theory


Obama said no more settlements, Israel built more settlements.And I'm sure Obama's real pleased about that. He's probably wetting his pants over the fact that the Babylonian-Jewish conspiracy is growing in power every day. :lol:


The Zionists have many allies in Washingtonnot as many as right-wing and "left-wing" anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists would have you believe.


and they're trying to play them against the administration.Well, yeah, politics as usual. How does this prove your point, whatever it was?


Yes, because it's the only factor that actually kills Pakistani workers.Wow. I figured you were brain-washed by "anti-war" indoctrination, but I didn't think the brainwashing was that extensive. Do you honestly believe that? I guess Pakistanis never die of starvation, dehydration, exposure/heatstroke from inadequite shelter, malaria, gastroenteritis, cholera, hepatitis, diarrhea, HIV/AIDS, "natural disasters", or conflicts with agents of the national bourgeoisie. (such as police, prison guards, Islamist insurgents, etc.)


We MIGHT end up being ruled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in 2100. We MIGHT get hit by an asteroid. We MIGHT find life on Mars.

I'm no astronomy expert, but I know enough to know that scientists have already found microscopic life on Marx, and that collision with an asteroid is actually a perfectly realistic, down-to-earth outcome regarding the fate of humanity. So your appeal to absurdity has kind of flopped.

However, preventing the Revolutionary Guard from expanding it's rule is a lot easier than preventing an asteroid from colliding with Earth.

I don't think it will take until 2100 for Iran to be a major imperialist power. A neo-liberal pundit being interviewed on the Daily Show predicted that in the near future, Iran will either be North Korea or Iran will be China. In this matter, this pro-Western capitalist's analysis is essentially correct. If Iran doesn't fail as a state it will likely become an emergent imperialist power.


Until then, I'll be supporting the actual interests of actual workers.Well, you better start now.


I mentioned the reaction to bourgeois rhetoric in 2008.the "reaction" by TV pundits and your anonymous, possibly-fictitious Sino-Tibetan "friends".


No, those anti-Olympic protesters were liberal hypocrites.The vast majority of anti-Olympic crusaders were not "liberal hypocrites" but working-class Tibetans, Mongolians, and Uighurs who were more likely to be socially conservative than anything else.


I was in contact with many people from the PRC and many of Chinese descent who fully supported China against the capitalist slander it faced.As I've said before, plenty of "people of color" are loyal to the US as well. "Support" from "many people" is not the same as having the support of facts.


The Free Tibet camp was full of liberals, just in case you wanted to compare and contrast.the pro-PRC camp is full of liberals too. Ever read Z Magazine?


I wasn't aware that the Basques were living in a feudalist society before the 1950's.I'm sure indigenous Basque society could easily be classified as "fuedal" by Marxist-Leninist bigots since nomadic Tibetan hunter-gatherers are also "feudal". Tibet was not a "fuedalist society" in the 1950s, it was semi-colonial/semi-feudal, like Palestine and India before respective Zionist and British rule. Another example of you talking out your ass.


I wasn't aware that the PRC machine-gunned TibetansBecause you choose to be "unaware"


The last thing I'll worry about is an anarchist calling me a "'pure' Stalinist".The first thing you should worry about is anarchists breaking down your gulags and overthrowing your alleged "dictatorship of the proletariat" once it's formed. (Which, thankfully, will be never)


Yes, especially when him and Engels refuted the claims of anarchists.To my knowledge, the only anarchist claim that Marx and Engels refuted was the claim that "the state" wasn't an organ of class rule and vise versa, a refutation I happen to agree with. It's a big leap of logic to go from there to the "democratic centralism" of Leninism.


Chinese "patriotism" (as I'm sure you'd call it) has not been used for imperialist ends.If you don't define 'conquering and enslaving other nations' as 'imperialism'


Saying "God Bless America" when you're making racist attacks is one thing, saying "Patria o Muerte" when you're defending a socialist society against imperialist aggression is another.Ah, more "socialism within one country" rubbish. Were the Nazis "defending a socialist society against imperialist aggression" too, just out of curiosity?

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean?


And speaking to citizens of the PRC on their views and hopes and opinions is, in my opinion, quite insightful.Yes, but ignoring the fact that, as a resident of both the US and Germany, the citizens of the PRC you are likely to encounter on a regular basis are most likely those who A) either have the disposable income to travel or B) have traveled to the West for employment reasons. Thus you are attempting to scry or divine the popular sentiment of the entire PRC from your limited interactions with a small segment of the population that is economically affluent and therefore likely to have more patriotism for and allegiance to the Chinese state.


I'd appreciate it if you didn't mock such an exchange.If you don't want people to mock your obviously limited personal experiences, you shouldn't use them as points of argument in debates on the Internet with potentially hostile strangers.


Wrong. The capitalist police have total control over black communities.That's not necessarily true at all. They have control, but they struggle to maintain it. Illegal drug-cartels, for example, have more control in some black communities than police. are a serious Also, many capitalist police in the US are black, just many capitalist police in the PRC are Tibetan. However, the majority are white, just as the majority are Han.


The black bourgeoisie don't usually own businesses in black neighborhoods.They don't? Have you ever been to a black neighborhood?


The PRC isn't capitalist, so it would be difficult to say its police is, as well.Oh yes, the Blanquist/Leninist fiction of a "non-capitalist" centralized, hierarchical, technocratic police force.


Funny how the PRC gives preferential treatment to non-Han nationalitiesIn the same way that the US gives "preferential treatment" to non-white nationalities by giving them free scholarships and welfare. :rolleyes:

You're sort of like the Chinese equivalent of Walter Williams and Bill Bennett.


Can you show me an ounce of rhetoric from the PRC that suggests such an ideology?Just read any news-story about Tibet in any state-owned Chinese newspaper.


Tibetan culture is not being destroyed by those mean old "Chinese people", it's being integrated into a larger community of nationalities, all with their own traditions and cultures.You say po-taye-to, I say po-tah-to.


Where's your indignation over the supposed destruction of Manchurian or Cantonese or Mongol culture in the PRC?I'm sure all the Manchurian nationalists are disgusted by the Tibetan social imperialist chauvinism inherent in my off-hand, passing reference to Tibet which provoked a shit-storm from yourself. Who is the one who is indignant, now?


Oh, right, you wouldn't have the rhetorical umbrella of the capitalist Free Tibet camp for that.I don't think "fuck the Dalai Lama in his fat little ass" falls under "the rhetorical umbrella of the capitalist Free Tibet camp"


Yeah, I "fell for it", just like everyone I know who lives in the country and can see when China is being slandered by imperialists once again.I love how you speak for "everyone who lives in" the PRC, including Tibetans, when you've already admitted that you've never had a political conversation with a Tibetan in your life. You are such a failure, my friend.


The Chinese state does provide for Uighur, Tibetan and Mongolian cultural identity, and that's why it's progressive.Fine, as long as you acquiess that the US is also "progressive" for having Black History Month and forcing elementary school students to make American Indian "dream-catchers" out of popsickle sticks and brightly-colored yarn.


It's "hegemony" frustrates and refutes imperialist advances to subjugate the people of China like it did before the revolution.So Barack Obama wants to restore the regime of Chang-Kai Shek? Another good example of your "unilateral thinking", as Mr./Ms. Miles put it.

Also the conditions that the Chinese people lived under "before the revolution" have already been restored by the revisionist reforms. You're lucky those wackos at the RCP don't assault people like you anymore.


You're forgetting that the vast majority of Bavarians and Hessians will consider themselves German, something you've railed against this entire time.In my defense, I am a German, (my grandparents are conservative Pennsylvania Deutsch Anabaptists, or were before they left the church, whose ancestors are from the Rhineland) so I am entitled to comment on the ethnic dynamics of my own people. You're not a Tibetan and you've never even talked to a Tibetan or read anything about Tibet that wasn't written as Maoist propaganda, therefore you're talking out your ass.

The majority of blacks consider themselves American. I guess Dead Prez isn't allowed to say "I ain't never been American" in their songs, at least according to your PC capitalist logic.


Remember when you said that "Germany" should be destroyed?Yeah, of course, I said it yesterday, why would I have forgotten. Are you hoping to expose some long-lost ideological indiscretion that I've subsequently rejected and tried to distance myself from? Because the four hours of sleep I've gotten in the mean time hasn't really changed my perspective.


Many Mongolians DO consider themselves Chinese, as they form a non-Han nationality within the PRC.So I guess if the PRC annexed Hokkaido, the Ainu would also magically become Chinese. I mean, if "many Ainu" were brainwashed by state-capitalist Chinese media into believing they were Chinese, I guess it'd be true. Sort of like O'Brian's rant at the end of 1984 about how 2+2=5 is true if enough people believe it. Speaking of which, aren't you supposed to be a materialist rather than a subjectivist idealist?


Many peoples from many locales (who don't speak Sinic languages) have been part of the shared history of China for centuries.It's pretty sick and perverse how you continue to insist that anyone who has been victimized by Chinese cultural imperialism, not just during the "communist" era, but dating back to the fuedal regimes of the Bronze Age, is "Chinese" because of "shared history".


This is why "China" means more than the Han, and that's precisely what you can't understand."America" means more than white people but white people are at the top of the American caste system. Do you really think the state of China was established by Burmese, Tibetans, Turks, and Mongolians?


No, it means that the Black working class identified those who stood with them as their allies.Paul Robeson and W.E.B. DuBois ≠ the black working class


The CPUSA was essentially the only organization which organized Blacks and demanded their liberation.Actually the CPUSA has a profound history of blatant racism and de facto white nationalism. I suggest you read Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat by Maoist author J. Sakai to learn more.


The Civil Rights movement was connected to this in some ways, but it developed because of the struggles of Black workers.I'm not trying to claim that the "Civil Rights movement" was a purely an expression of opposition to political disenfranchisement with no obvious economic motivations or factors. I'm claiming that the Civil Rights movement was not engineered by Soviet intelligence, as John Birchers (and apparently you) seem to believe, just as Tibetan resistance was not engineered by the CIA and Lamaist "fuedal reactionaries".


I have the audacity to support a socialist state, yes.What exactly makes the Soviet Union circa 1950 any more of a "socialist state" than, say, modern-day Sweden or Peronist Argentina?


Paul Robeson was one of the most remarkable men of the last century. In addition to his accomplishments as a singer, he was one of the best actors of his day, an award-winning athelete, a scholar and a singular champion of the black struggle in America.I don't actually have anything against Paul Robeson. I just like to marvel at the fact that there are individuals whose brains are so mailable that they can be duped into thinking the Soviet Union genuinely gave a damn about American negros because Paul Robeson sang the Soviet national anthem.


Your arrogant dismissal of Robeson just underlines your ignorance of the struggle for liberation. I guess, like Marx, the "struggle for liberation" could not have occurred without Paul Robeson. You learn something new about life every day, don't you?


I'd rather not discuss my background right now.Yet you were happy to brag about all your Chinese and Russian friends before. What's changed?


Read up on the Soviet approach to the national question. They made every effort to respect and promote self-determination of all its nationalities.Such as pushing Siberian shamans out of helicopters? Oh, I forgot, they were "feudal reactionaries" too...


Any evidence to suggest the two are comparable?They both outlawed indigenous languages, religion, and dress in an attempt to assimilate a subjugated ethnic minority into the settler population


While you're at it, why don't you dismiss school as bad one more time? I mean, I can see your point, reading is soooo overrated.Being forced to learn how to read Chinese because is soooo overated. (BTW I didn't go to school and I still know how to read. Strange)

Seriously, why don't you start claiming that the Spanish brought "literacy" and "education" to Meso-America by burning vast archives of Mayan and Aztec codices and forcing their Indian subjects to learn Spanish?


It isn't an imagined threat when foreign intererence is a documented historical fact in the region.Since Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are both "foreign interferences", does that make all the CCTV cameras in the US good too?


Tibet borders one of the most volatile hotspots on the map. But keep believing that Tibet is some sort of vacuum, isolated from the larger world...or is that what you WANT Tibet to be?You don't get it, do you. If I don't have any investment in the success of the Chinese political project, then I don't give a shit whether or not certain atrocities or indignities are justified as necessary to strengthen the Chinese political project. What other justification would be given?


Oh, sweet, now you're an architecture critic.You say that as if it's a bad thing, as if people shouldn't be conscious of their daily reality, or have any investment in the condition of their local surroundings. Almost every aspect of your psychology is capitalist.


Are you going to lecture me on the aesthetic virtue of the Roman Baroque style? What of the revolutionary importance of the Market of Trajan? I'll get you glass of Merlot if you don't feel snobbish enough already.Are you aware that class is a material condition rather than a social identity? Even if I liked Merlot and Roman Baroque architecture, I'd still be unemployed...

I guess all the working-class rednecks in my town, who complained when the Victorian houses their families grew up in were seized from them by the state eminent domain and demolished to make room for a massive, box-shaped, grey concrete parking deck for a state-funded business/technology college, were all Merlot-drinking snobs as well. I'm sure if you read about that story in a newspaper, you would be immediately filled with indignation towards the capitalist culprits in the US. However, if you heard that it had happened in Tibet, you'd probably just laugh.


The high-rises serve a purpose: HOUSING PEOPLE. They do a pretty good job of that.Tibetans had houses before the Chinese showed up. Seriously, what is your mental image of pre-CCP Tibet, a bunch of lobotomized dog-men running around nude, caked in mud, dragging women by the tufts of their hair and beating each other with comically oblong clubs? Just out of curiosity, what actual research have you done into the daily lives of Tibetans prior to CCP rule? Or would that be more "personal information" that you would be uncomfortable revealing...


Ai.ya, ni tai cong.ming! Keshi, ni keyi bu keyi nian wo.de bie.de zhongwen? Ni bu wo.de laoshi, dui bu dui? Xianzai, yin.wei ni xian Mousavi, wo yinggai gaosu ni dai yi.ge lu mao.zi!!!!


Oh, and I don't watch Firefly.It's OK, I don't speak Mandarin. I doubt you're a serious student either, since you're using Romanization....


if you knew the first thing about 9th Century Europe, you'd probably know it was the most ignorant and terrible time in European history.Ah, gotta love me some capitalist anti-medieval chauvinism. Tell me, did they have nuclear waste, retina scans, or national ID cards in 9th century Europe?


You don't stand for progress, you stand against it.I stand against the progress of capitalism, which is the same thing as standing for the progress of the human condition.


Let's get one thing straight, the "progress" of the capitalist epoch is one of coercian and bloodletting.Except when capitalists call themselves "socialists", right?


In this, the improvements in technology are improvements, but they are brought for one specific purpose: exploitation. But how could non-exploitative conditions produce certain "technologies" such as mass-transit infrastructures? It's absurd.


The railroad is one such improvement, as it facilitates transportation and communication, brings people closer together and makes the world smaller.That's only an "improvement" in your subjective opinion. Objectively, it didn't make it easier for anyone to survive, biologically speaking


The point is for the workers to utilize the improvements and progress brought by the capitalists for the common enrichment of the vast majority of humanity.I agree, but certain social arrangements imposed by capitalism are not "improvements" but rather an unnecessary waste of scarcely available energy, ones which are only necessary if you wish for a large mass of people to be ruled by a small minority.


Capitalism is surely barbaric, but it provides humanity with the opportunity for liberation, something not possible from the contradictions of feudalism or tribalism.In my perspective, this is anti-scientific. There is no perfect society, no society free of strife, challenge, or material scarcity. If a certain society provided more individual liberty, genuine social solidarity, and ecological harmony than another society, then former model needs to be prefered to the latter. Citing some purely imagined, historically unprecedented, global, egalitarian, industrial, hedonist orgy that might someday emerge from the latter as a justification for destroying the former in favor of the latter is a bold-faced opportunistic manipulation.


In this sense, Marxists deem bourgeois victories such as the Great French Revolution of 1789 as progressiveOnly "unscientific" Marxists who think that historical materialism is the same thing as determinism and destiny and that the French Revolution couldn't have ended without the bourgeois seizure of power.


Nice catchphrases, how about explaining this.Postone's Time, Labor, and Alienation and Federici's Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation explain it better than I could, but you don't seem like the type of person who would take book recommendations from a political opponent.


If the PRC had not liberated the Tibetan people, they would still be living under a god-kingAs I'm sure I've already pointed out, Tibet is a very large region, about the size of Western Europe. Most feudal regimes don't have the material capability to universally subjugate the entire population of a region that large, therefore large areas pre-CCP-controlled Tibet were ungoverned and inhabited by libertarian/primitive communist hunter-gather tribes. However it doesn't matter since you've already admitted you support the capitalist destruction of tribal societies, be it by the socialist capitalists of the CCP or the "imperialist" capitalists of European colonialism.


You could fit ten Switzerlands into Poland. What's your point?My point is that you seem to think that a Chinese and a Tibetan have as much in common, anthropologically speaking, as a Sicilian and a Roman, which shows that you are ignorant of, among many other things, anthropology


It underlines your exceptionalism for Tibet, which is founded on nothing but rhetoric.I am just more familiar with the situation in Tibet. I don't know anything about the communist/anti-imperialist struggle in Tasmania either, is that another example of "exceptionalism"?


And how is the PRC capitalist? How is it not capitalist?


Then they can and should (and do) engage with the CPC and PRC to fix such shortcomings.The Tibetan national bourgeoisie has been engaging with the CCP and the PRC for decades and it hasn't worked. Fuck "engagement" with any centralized political party.


No, I pointed out that there are many differences between northern and southern Italians. Try to keep up.It is obvious from the context that where I typed "differences", I meant to type "similarities". Attacking the typos, grammatical errors, and dyslexic mistakes is a hallmark of one who is losing the argument.


Justify the comparison.The Chinese outlawed Tibetan and forced the Tibetans to learn Chinese.


There is a shared history there, of course, but there is one signal difference between Japan and China: one is socialistBut if a socialist party won an election in Japan, things would be different, right? Hokkaido and Okinawa would no longer be colonial subjects but part of a wonderful "multicultural" society that gives all "minorities" the "freedom" to "engage" the ruling party, even though the only thing that has changed is ideological window-dressing, not the material conditions of reality.

Also, how is China any more "socialist" than Japan? the US has more "socialist" policies than the modern-day PRC, since almost all of Mao's social programs were gutted or destroyed during the "reforms" of the 70s and 80s...


The PRC incorporates many nationalities, Japan scorns them."Scorning" and "incorporating" nationalities are not mutualy exclusive actions. They go together well, it's called imperialism


Again, you're ignoring policies. What is Europe trying to do to Africa right now? What are white Americans trying to do to American Indians right now? The opposite of the PRC's policies.This is from the website of the capitalist, pro-Western Tibetan Government in exile, so it deserves to be taken with a grain of salt. (I assume you're not inherently prejudiced against reading texts by political adversaries, since you read a whole book about the collapse of the Soviet Union by a journalist who works for the National Review) However, it gives, in my mind, a satisfactory overview of how the PRC's treatment of Tibetans is analogous to the historical treatment of the Africans and American Indians by Europeans. (Also, given both the US, European, and Chinese states are all essentially on the same page regarding the transition to neo-colonial/"multicultural"/PC modes of social control, the same is true, not just historically, but of today)

http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white2.html
http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white5.html
http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white6.html
http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white7.html
http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white8.html (please pay special attention to this one since it refutes your claim that the PRC's population control policies more negatively effect Han than ethnic minorities)
http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white9.html
http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white10.html

I know that since I'm using political propaganda by the Tibetan-government-in-exile, you'll probably use this as an excuse to dismiss my arguments as those of the "liberal" Free Tibet camp. Please note, however, that the questions I raise may be the same as the Social Democratic "Free Tibet"-ians, the conclusions I draw are profoundly different. If you can refute the claims made in the above article rather than dismiss them based on their source, you will have gained the upper hand in the argument.


How open-minded of you.I guess if some Chinese peasant was smart enough not to believe some fat, spoiled white American tourist as he talked his ear off about how blacks, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians, and Indians have equal freedoms to whites in the US, he would be "close-minded" as well.


No, not that I recall, but I usually show tact when discussing politics with non-socialists anyway, Tibetan or otherwise.Did you ask them about their experiences with Chinese police, prisons, developers, settlers, schools, etc.? I don't see how doing so would show a lack of "tact"...


And your rhetoric differs from theirs how?1. I call for militant resistance, class war, and general armed struggle for local, communal, autonomy within the advanced capitalist state of the PRC, whereas the Social Democratic Tibetan national bourgeoisie and their Western supporters call for total pacification (usually justified with pseudo-Buddhism) and mediation between the Tibetan people and the Chinese state.
2. The "Free Tibet camp", as you accurately characterize it, is pro-Western, whereas I view the Tibetan national liberation struggle within the context of international class war, and therefore war against the Western imperial powers as well as the PRC
3. The "Free Tibet camp" is in bed with the religious bureaucratic institutions of mainstream Tibetan Buddhism, (which you inaccurately characterize as being comprised of Lamaist feudalist reactionaries) whereas I view Buddhism in general as a patriarchal, nihilistic, anthropocentric, and anti-existential philosophy, and philosophically sympathize more with the Bönpos, whose cultural experience the "Free Tibet camp" tends to ignore because it doesn't appeal to New Age hippies (like Vajrayana Buddhism does) nor does it serve as PC window-dressing to distract from obvious Buddhist chauvinism. (like the experience of Tibetan Muslims does)
4. The "Free Tibet camp", being comprised of capitalist reformists, envisions a neo-colonial capitalist Tibetan state, governed by Tibetan politicians, landlords, business-owners, police, prison-guards, engineers/technicians, academics, priests, etc., whereas I am a communist and wish to see communism in Tibet, as there was in much of Tibet before the brutal socialist-capitalist colonization that occurred at the hands of the CCP


With this we can see that China places great importance on the role of culture within society, where this importance has been carried over onto the question of Tibet - the Chinese recognize the need for the preservation of Tibetan culture.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-macbain/heads-of-state-must-be-aw_b_96824.htmlY'know, using the Huffington Post as a source pretty much totally deflates your attempt to conflate my position with that of a "liberal"


Empty promises compared to the PRC's policies.Not that you have the personal experience, nor have you conducted the academic research, that would be required to accurately conduct such a comparison.


Don't even try to compare the genocidal treatment of American Indians to the PRC's policies in Tibet just to further your agenda, it's really quite absurd.I believe over 1 million Tibetans have died as a consequence of Chinese occupation. That's 1 million of a population of about 5 million, btw.

And I'm not the first one who has made the comparison, especially given the parallel natures of the 2008 and 2010 Olympics. (If Canada is capitalist, but China isn't, do the activities of the Olympic committee and its sponsors count as capitalist oppression in Canada but not China?)


Perhaps they should read the link I posted above.Yeah, if only Tibetans read some pro-PRC propaganda piece posted in Arianna Huffington's blog, then they'd realize that their personal experiences only existed in the heads of white, Tibet-obsessed college Leftists, as you claim.


Having a police force does not contribute to your point. Not having a Tibetan military does not contribute to your point. Having resources used by the state one belongs to does not contribute to your point.Yes it does. Without these things, no real political autonomy exists. Even with these things, no real economic autonomy exists. (Since Canada has a military and it's certainly not economically autonomous from the US)


Right. Except Marx and Engels clashed on the whole idea of what a revolutionary should establish. More wishful thinking.You mean, clashed with each other, or with the anarchists? If you mean the latter, I should point out that they clashed more with the professional revolutionaries such as Lassalle and Blanqui who were essentially proto-Lenins


The relevant struggle is against US imperialism.A struggle which the PSL is not engaged in, in any practical sense.


I deal with realityCould have fooled me...


Why go to Jim Jones when you can get some from the Free Tibet camp?As I have already established, I participate in such a radical theoretical departure from "the Free Tibet camp" that I can barely even be said to be among its members. Therefore, I feel I have sufficiently displayed an accurate amount of intellectual independence regardless of how many of my positions may in happenstance be shared with Social Democratic, neo-liberal, or reactionary advocates of Tibetan independence. You on the other hand, display such little intellectual independence that you are willing to accept at face-value the legitimacy of any capitalist state's claims of commitment to "socialist" or "communist" principles. Considering Jim Jones was at one time a well-respected member of the Marxist-Leninist New Left, my comparison was especially fitting. By merely turning it around on me, rather than tailoring a clever comparison of your own, (for example, likening my beliefs to those of Varg Vikirnes or Pentti Linkola) you've pretty much conceded the battle of wits.

Edit:

A point I forgot to respond to


I didn't ask for an approximation, I asked for something concrete.Considering no centralized, definitive database exists of all historical acts of civil disruption committed either in Chinese-occupied Tibet or among the West African diaspora in the U.S.-Canada, recognizing your request wold require hours of research on my part, hours of my life I'm not willing to waste trying to win a game of oppression olympics, hours of research you yourself should be doing, rather than demanding someone else do for you, if you sincerely wish to learn more about the subject rather than merely satisfy your ego by winning a message board debate.

[Honggweilo]

shitstorm tldr :huh:

[manic expression]

Since 90 percent of your response is composed of personal insults, I see little point in going point-by-point through them all. Suffice to say that anyone who can read can also see that you were the first to play the insult card. I played along a little, just to see how badly it would unnerve you, and it turned you into a raging asshole. That even exceeded my expections, I'll admit.

Now you're trying to keep the flame war going because -- let's be honest -- it's the only thing that can distract from your ahistorical, mechanical, moralistic approach to this question. You got beaten, but your ego won't let you admit it. So all you can do is accuse me of "throwing a temper tantrum" (false), of being "pissed off" (false) and other personal attacks. In the process, you call me "dumb", "immature" and a number of other invectives.

That's interesting, because you were doing your very best to flame me and make personal insults based on bits of information about my life. Not one post ago, you stated this:

Sounds like someone should call the Waaaahmbulance for you.

Your words speak for themselves.


All of this is more than familiar to me. What manic expression is demonstrating here is how the petty bourgeoisie responds to a challenge from someone thought to be an inferior. More to the point, this is how the petty bourgeois are trained throughout their early lives to ideologically suppress independent thoughts by working people. It's drilled into their heads at an early age, through a combination of stratified education and socialization into their class. It is, when you get down to it, an admission of his own bankruptcy.

Is this not a personal attack? Of course it is, and it's as petty as it is incorrect. The more you make (absurd) assumptions about me and my life, the more you expose your inability to stick to honest, genuine arguments. Anyone who knows me knows that what you've said is baseless slander, and so it's simply not worth my time.


But it's more than that. What manic has done here is expose one of the key reasons why petty-bourgeois socialism has failed in the 20th century. To put it bluntly, it's because of arrogant, self-absorbed people who may not be managers themselves, but nonetheless practice the ideological arts of management. And a central part of that ideological art is teaching workers to know their place. This is what manic is trying to do with his insults and personalism. And, again, while that might work on some, it doesn't work on me.

Sounds like someone should call the Waaaahmbulance for you.

Who among us wrote that? It wasn't me, that's for sure. If you actually believe you have the high ground on this, you're simply delusional. All I did was call a spade a spade.


I'd actually like to thank manic for exposing himself as he has in this debate. He's been a quite useful idiot. I now consider this thread necessary reading for any young working-class person considering membership in the PSL (or any other petty-bourgeois socialist sect, for that matter). Young comrades: This is your future if you ever attempt to have a differing opinion from your leaders. Consider carefully the choice you make -- it may mean the difference between you participating in the movement for a lifetime or until these elements chew you up and spit you out.

And now we get to the bottom of your insecurity. You have, over multiple threads, tried to find every excuse to slander the PSL and its work. You nit-pick PSL campaigns, you nit-pick slogans, you nit-pick the statements of individual candidate members on RevLeft and you ignore the circumstances of everything you blindly criticize. Now, you're making a long-winded speech based on personal insults against me.

What this is really about, what your petty personal pejoratives really boil down to, is an insecure hatred of the PSL. Yes. The PSL is the most active, energetic, forward-looking, effective and relevant socialist organization in America today. What has the WPA done recently? Where is their presence in working-class struggles?

I ask you once more, what is your party up to? I asked you this multiple times and got no answer, because the answer is clear: the WPA has no activist presence and no relevance to working class struggle. That comment of mine which set off your self-righteous ranting remains true, in spite all of the personal charges you've made in an attempt to gloss over the truth. The fact that you think a hypocritical, duplicitous essay against the PSL on RevLeft changes anything just underlines how disconnected you are.

Lastly, as one long-time revolutionary in the PSL once told me: "there's a working-class maxim that communists must follow: if you can't do better, shut the hell up". Read those words closely and comprehend their meaning.


With that taken care of, let me respond to the one political point our useful idiot actually raised.

Both. The U.S. first went in unwillingly, tied to their treaties with the French. That was in 1950. Fourteen years later, in 1964, a section of the U.S. capitalist class that wanted to widen Washington's involvement, staged Tonkin to sway petty-bourgeois "public opinion" and build enough of a consensus to expand America's military presence.

American involvement in Vietnam became an all-out war effort in the 60's, which is when the Vietnamese were forced to fight a new enemy in their struggle for independence and liberation. Your analysis, that the US bourgeoisie initiated this willingly, proves exactly what I've been saying this entire time: that the American project to oppress the Vietnamese people was chosen by the American imperialists. Indeed, the imperialists themselves explored alternatives to the route they ultimately chose. The American imperialists, as leaders of the imperialist camp, decided on their own accord to try to destroy the will of the Vietnamese people. You have been unable to show that this dynamic has changed, precisely because it has not.

[Agrippa]

the WPA has no activist presence and no relevance to working class struggle.

True, but neither has the PSL.


Lastly, as one long-time revolutionary in the PSL once told me: "there's a working-class maxim that communists must follow: if you can't do better, shut the hell up".

Just within the context of issuing a statement on the Iranian revolts, Miles' off-the-cuff comments in response to your views of American imperialism would actually serve as a better statement on Iran than the OP. So, just within this context, "better" has been done

Just so I don't get accused again of being his "cheerleader", I will say the ad hominem attacks he used against you were asinine, irrational, unfounded, and his boasting and self-congratulating was crude, obnoxious, and egotistical, and both all-but sabotaged his point, were it not otherwise so eloquently phrased and true to reality.


Your analysis, that the US bourgeoisie initiated this willingly, proves exactly what I've been saying this entire time: that the American project to oppress the Vietnamese people was chosen by the American imperialists.

But that wasn't his analysis. His analysis was that the colonization of Indochina was originally the project of the French bourgeoisie, which the American bourgeoisie had little interest in, and was only reluctantly forced into to fulfill treaty promises. Only a decade later did a relatively small, reality un-advanced and reactionary, element of the American bourgeoisie decide it was in the best interests of the USA to go at Vietnam full-force. As history has clearly shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, their decision was a wrong one. Keep in mind that, as Miles said, Kennedy, who represented the strategically sophisticated, Jacobian bourgeoisie, preferred negotiations with the Soviet bourgeoisie, (the smart answer) was essentially assassinated by Oswald (who anarchist Kerry Thornley mentions in writing a year prior to the Kennedy assassination as being a suspected agent provocateur hired to root out Marxists in the Navy) leading to a practical coup de'tat by the more regressive faction, which included Kennedy's vice-president, LBJ. (A favorite suspect of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists for good reason) Whether Oswald genuinely was a mysterious psychotic lone-wolf or part of a greater conspiracy is an irrelevant matter of trivial historical contenture. The point is, if Kennedy had lived, the US would be in a much stronger position than it is today.

Were you a Maoist, you would be indoctrinated into believing that the US is a "paper tiger". Your indoctrinatrion into bizarre, possibly-Hoxhaist Kruschevite Stalinism has instead taught you to view the US as some sort of Death Star. (And the PSL is all it takes to "aim for the thermal exhaust port" - except the only real "thermal exhaust port" is coming from your fellow party-member's mouths ;))

As an aside, the Viet Cong were also imperialists for trying to graft their bureaucratic agenda onto the just Vietnamese national liberation struggle, leading to the creation of a Sinic puppet state. Have a nice day.

Indeed, the imperialists themselves explored alternatives to the route they ultimately chose. The American imperialists, as leaders of the imperialist camp, decided on their own accord to try to destroy the will of the Vietnamese people. You have been unable to show that this dynamic has changed, precisely because it has not.[/QUOTE]

[manic expression]

I'm saying that the German and French imperialists, along with the bulk of the EU, and their Russian and Chinese allies, constitute an imperialist cartel that rivals the bloc created by the U.S. and Britain. Yes, they're all tied together because of the world capitalist system, and even rivals suffer when capitalism goes through a crisis.

I've addressed this before. The US market drives the health of all those markets you mentioned; the housing bubble in the US and its aftermath threw the rest of imperialism into disarray. That's simply because most other imperialist powers are directly dependent on US imperialism, as US imperialism has led the imperialist camp since 1956. You would have a point if American capitalists were being dragged into wars they otherwise wouldn't have been a part of by a stronger imperialist force, but they aren't. You would have a point if, say, the Japanese stock market dictated the health of Wall Street at every turn, but it doesn't. These are the facts of imperialism, and that's why American imperialism is the greatest threat to the workers of all countries.


The only person trying to rationalize something away here is you. You so much want the world to be unipolar that you're willing to close your eyes and ears to the reality of capitalism today. This is not the 1950s. Stop resting on the corpse of Sam Marcy for your theory and analysis.

This is meaningless.


American imperialism may still have a dominant place, but that's a relative position and one that is in flux. More to the point, it is heading downward while the positions of its rivals are heading upward. The higher they climb, the farther they have to fall, as the saying goes. And, yes, the U.S. has a long way to fall before hitting bottom. Nevertheless, it is falling -- its position is eroding, and Washington's rivals are taking advantage of the retreat.

Sure, it's always a relative position, I never said otherwise. The point is that it's dominant place must determine the policies and positions of revolutionaries. Once we understand that American imperialism is dominant, we can combat capitalism more effectively, and that means opposing its advances in the situation in Iran.

Yes, I agree that the higher they climb, the farther they fall; yes, I agree that American imperialism is in crisis and will likely ruin itself in a few decades (if that). However, like I told Agrippa, our analysis must be on the present when it comes to things like Iran. The Iranian demonstrations are happening in the present, and so the makeup of imperialism in the present is most important.


You are seeing the world as a series of static photographs that only move when you decide to turn the page. It doesn't work that way.

I don't agree with that. I see history as having turning points and milestones.


You really are intellectually dishonest, aren't you?

Just because the current economic crisis began in the U.S. doesn't mean that "American imperialism is solely responsible" and, by that token, that Washington is "leading the imperialist camp". If that was true, then the U.S. has held that position since the end of the First World War, not the Second. After all, the economic crisis that sparked the worldwide Great Depression in 1929 began in the U.S., too.

That may be so, but it would be a selective viewpoint. Why? Multiple other factors show that American imperialism is dominant: its initiation of imperialist invasions, its military power, its geopolitical influence (and ambition) in just about every region of the world and more. By the 50's, the US was engineering coups in Iran; this would have been simply unthinkable before the shifting power dynamics of imperialism since World War II. The Suez Canal conflict, only years after the CIA's coup in Iran, simply solidified the US as the leader of the imperialist camp. Britain and France were undeniably at the American bourgeoisie's behest, and I fail to see how this has changed since then.


No, I'm recognizing that there are consequences to events. The U.S. is faltering economically; it has overextended its economic and military projection; it has had to retreat from some areas in order to concentrate on others; it is no longer the world's producer, and is fast losing its position as the largest market.

I agree with this. I have constantly reiterated my agreement with this, as a matter of fact.


Washington's rivals went to Afghanistan as a result of NATO commitments, just as the U.S. initially went to Yugoslavia. But when Washington wanted to go into Iraq, those rivals refused. And the U.S. was virtually powerless to compel them. And when the U.S. tried to start trade wars with the EU over it, Washington lost.

The U.S. may be tactically well-positioned to threaten Iran, but they do not have the world-strategic positioning.

Simply because France and Germany refused to go along with the invasion of Iraq when Italy, Poland, Spain (initially, before Aznar got booted), Japan (their deployment of limited troops was a big shift in Japanese foreign policy) and other countries did, does not suffice as proof of what you're saying. In fact, IIRC, French and German interests in Iraq were being foiled by the invasion, as Iraq did trade with the EU. The US bourgeoisie simply stepped in with brute force and enforced its interests. That may be a sign of coming decline or desperation, but it's also a sign of undeniable danger to the working class.


Actually, I have addressed this assertion (not fact) of yours. France and Germany, together with Russia and China, have greater economic and political means than American imperialism. Their economies are better positioned to match the needs of their ruling classes, and any dependency they once had on Washington is fundamentally non-existent today. Again, this is not the 1950s. This isn't even the 1990s. You have yet to deal with the current situation as it is. You only deal abstractly with how it was.

So you deny how badly German capitalists were hit by a crisis caused by American mis-investment? That's the situation as it is, not as it fits into your worldview.

Further, justify the assertion (not fact) that China is imperialist.


So you didn't actually have a point, except that nothing has changed in the last 50 years. Great job!

Things have changed. The basics of imperialist power, however, has not. You look to German and French refusal to invade Iraq as some proof that America isn't the working class' greatest enemy, but the two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact the circumstances of the invasion show that the American bourgeoisie is still the dominant force in imperialism today.

Like it was in 1956.


You're right, it hasn't worked. Why hasn't it worked? Because America's rivals have ignored the sanctions and have taken advantage of the fact that the U.S. didn't "stake their claim" over those resources in order to do it themselves. Thanks for making my argument.

How, exactly, does this contradict my overall point?


"More dependent than ever". This is a relativism. If you give me $10 a week to buy lunch while at work, but then increase it to $20 a week, that means that I would be "more dependent than ever" on you.

You yourself said that the US' position of dominance was, in fact, relative, and I agreed with you in this post. Why wouldn't US-Saudi relations, then, also be relative? Your point on this is really tangential.


You really need to stop seeing things through nationalist lenses. It might help you to look less ridiculous.

That's a completely meaningless (and dishonest) response. Deal with the facts I posted.


If Japan and Germany had a reason to, they would. If they could only get what they want out of countries like Iraq, they would be acting just as the U.S. is there -- just as Germany has acted in Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much they "care" about anyone. Save that petty moralism for your church service.

So you're comparing German imperialism to American imperialism because Germany "has acted" in some form over the past 20 years? The point is that American imperialism constitutes a far greater threat ("relativism", as you agreed to previously) to the working class than any other force.

I never asserted that German capitalists care about workers more than American capitalists. Save that misrepresentation for your personal attacks against me.


Actually, the U.S. initially opposed the break-up of Yugoslavia. Washington believed it could achieve dominance in the Balkans best by using the federal structure in place in 1990. Germany and France disagreed, and provoked the secession of Croatia and Slovenia (and later Bosnia). In other words, they did this in opposition to American business, not "with paramount cooperation".

And what was then the behavior of the American imperialists? Stop looking at history so selectively.


I'm also not claiming that Japan is one of the main rivals of American imperialism. On the contrary, if you go back to the first post I wrote, you'll see that I called them "a former rival-cum-client growing increasingly independent of the Anglo-Americans".

And I continue to recognize that this does nothing to diminish my overall point, something you claimed to have accomplished with no support.


Anything to support the Islamists in power, eh? National socialism at its finest. The protesters could be carrying signs that say "For workers' power and socialism!" and "Join the PSL!" and you'd still denounce them as tools of imperialism.

So now you're calling me a Nazi.

Your slander isn't worth my time.


Given what I know about how low the petty-bourgeois left can go, I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't something Healy-esque about the PSL's support for the Iranian regime.

Except if you actually read the PSL's statement, it never explicitly or implicity expresses support for the Iranian regime.

Your slander isn't worth my time.


This is what poverty of theory get you: denunciations of any analysis of capitalism and reliance on a 50-year old "theory" that's been superseded by material conditions.

And yet you haven't shown HOW or WHY the materialist analysis of imperialism has been "superseded".


Besides that, it's becoming more and more clear that imperialism is hedging its bets around Iran. They talk more and more about the protest movement being "over" and "losing steam". Meanwhile, the protests continue and have changed their focus. Coincidence? I think not.

This rhetoric deserves some attention, but you should remember that such a shift is an easy way to denounce Iran for having some sort of "Tiananmen Square" and score political points for denouncing the Islamic Republic for a struggle within the Islamic Republic.

[manic expression]

True, but neither has the PSL.

Agrippa, honestly, why do you have to be so petulent? Stop jumping in on something that's clearly between Miles and I. It's rude, it's insensitive and it's distracting.

By the way, since your posts have NOTHING to do with either the situation in Iran OR the PSL's statement on that situation, I'll put my response to your anti-Chinese rhetoric at the very bottom of my to-do list. For all the vitrol between Miles and I, our worst exchanges have far more to do with the topic than your wandering logic ever has.

[Martin Blank]

Your words speak for themselves.

And your response proves my point.


Is this not a personal attack? Of course it is, and it's as petty as it is incorrect. The more you make (absurd) assumptions about me and my life, the more you expose your inability to stick to honest, genuine arguments. Anyone who knows me knows that what you've said is baseless slander, and so it's simply not worth my time.

In that passage, I wrote (briefly, admittedly) about something that happens in the petty-bourgeois left a lot. You're not the first or only one to do, and you won't be the last (unfortunately). If you take it as a personal slight, it's only because you resemble the remark ... and know it.


Who among us wrote that? It wasn't me, that's for sure. If you actually believe you have the high ground on this, you're simply delusional. All I did was call a spade a spade.

No, all you did is call insults from the beginning of this exchange.


And now we get to the bottom of your insecurity. You have, over multiple threads, tried to find every excuse to slander the PSL and its work. You nit-pick PSL campaigns, you nit-pick slogans, you nit-pick the statements of individual candidate members on RevLeft and you ignore the circumstances of everything you blindly criticize. Now, you're making a long-winded speech based on personal insults against me.

If that's how you see it, then you really aren't understanding a damn thing.


What this is really about, what your petty personal pejoratives really boil down to, is an insecure hatred of the PSL. Yes. The PSL is the most active, energetic, forward-looking, effective and relevant socialist organization in America today. What has the WPA done recently? Where is their presence in working-class struggles?

As you can see, I wasn't even here yesterday evening. I had a number of meetings I had to attend with contacts and fellow workers. You'll understand that I don't give you all the details; I simply don't trust you enough.

On the broader scale, and speaking about what the WPA has done recently, aside from just completing one union organizing drive, we are in the middle of three others, as well as continuing areas of work that we inherited from the Communist League (in auto, with indigenous people, etc.). Just because we're not in the media doesn't mean we're doing nothing.

How does that saying go? "It's the quiet ones you have to watch out for"?


I ask you once more, what is your party up to? I asked you this multiple times and got no answer, because the answer is clear: the WPA has no activist presence and no relevance to working class struggle. That comment of mine which set off your self-righteous ranting remains true, in spite all of the personal charges you've made in an attempt to gloss over the truth. The fact that you think a hypocritical, duplicitous essay against the PSL on RevLeft changes anything just underlines how disconnected you are.

I don't think it changes anything at all. I use RevLeft as a place to think out arguments that are made in other circles and among workers. You are little more than a sounding board and a foil. That's why fucking with you and exposing what the petty-bourgeois left has to offer anyone bothering to look at your organization or any so similar. To be honest, it wouldn't really have mattered what group you belong to; I would have done the same thing to you anyway.

The PSL is not unique in its petty-bourgeois arrogance; it's just that you're here, now, and open to being made an example of. That's all. It's nothing personal. It's a class thing ... which is why you don't understand.


Lastly, as one long-time revolutionary in the PSL once told me: "there's a working-class maxim that communists must follow: if you can't do better, shut the hell up". Read those words closely and comprehend their meaning.

See, that's the thing. I've done better. I've organized better around better slogans. My history and record, and that of my fellow Party members, speaks for itself. You may not hear it, but that's more your problem than ours.


American involvement in Vietnam became an all-out war effort in the 60's, which is when the Vietnamese were forced to fight a new enemy in their struggle for independence and liberation. Your analysis, that the US bourgeoisie initiated this willingly, proves exactly what I've been saying this entire time: that the American project to oppress the Vietnamese people was chosen by the American imperialists. Indeed, the imperialists themselves explored alternatives to the route they ultimately chose. The American imperialists, as leaders of the imperialist camp, decided on their own accord to try to destroy the will of the Vietnamese people. You have been unable to show that this dynamic has changed, precisely because it has not.

You're not saying anything here. It's all moral outrage and no analysis. Of course, American imperialism ultimately chose to escalate. You argued that it was a choice from the beginning, which it was not. The decision to escalate Vietnam was part of a factional conflict within the exploiting and oppressing classes, and a decision made only after a decade of lackluster compelled "commitment" that originated with a decision to assist the French.

As I said before, you are only looking at snapshots of what happened -- the hallmark of an impressionistic and moralistic (i.e., anti-materialist) approach to history and politics. And, in my opinion, you're doing the same with Iran.

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, honestly, why do you have to be so petulent?

Because the WWP line, which the PSL seems to uphold, that the US national bourgeoisie is a higher class of threat to the freedom and safety of the proletarian class, than any other bourgeoisie, that all US allies are "pawns", (with the possible exception of Israel which is always vaguely implied to have a sinister, occult sway over Washington) that all rivals of "US imperialism", not just the more relatively benign ones such as Chavez, Quadafi, and Castro, but all of them, from Saddam Hussein to Slovadon Milosovic to the DPRK and the "revisionist" PRC to Bin Laden and Hamas to the Islamic Republic of Iran, need to be given some degree of conditional support is vile, implicitly Euro-chauvinist, and could potentially sabotage the communist movement if it's allowed to grow any larger than the miniscule ideological sect it currently is. Therefore it must be denounced, petulantly.


Stop jumping in on something that's clearly between Miles and I. It's rude, it's insensitive and it's distracting.You seem unfamiliar with the basic informal ettiquite of message boards. There's no unwritten rule that says you can only reply to posts specifically directed at you. Sorry kid, message boards are a free-for-all. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And trust me, it's not out of any particular love for Miles that I chose to pick on you, since I don't always get along with ICC (or whatever random left-communist sect he said he belonged to) kids, for obvious reasons (http://gci-icg.org/english/communism10.htm#icc).


By the way, since your posts have NOTHING to do with either the situation in Iran OR the PSL's statement on that situationA thread was created just a few minutes ago about the subject of Tibet, I believe the thread is in the politics or history forum and is called "Free Tibet". You may respond to my positions on that thread - if you don't, I'm going to have to assume you only decided to object to the off-topic nature of our conversation once I had thoroughly won the argument beyond all benefit of the doubt.

Why else would you complain when I remain on-topic, on the grounds that I am "jumping in" and being "rude" and "distracting", and then suddenly complain again, out of nowhere, after four or five rigorous back-and-forth flame wars that were clearly off-topic, (I was just about to suggest that the thread be spun-off, actually) that I'm being off-topic?

[Agrippa]

I should also add that, from my perspective, Tibet is relevant to the conversation, because Iran and Tibet are parallel examples of anti-capitalist uprisings that the PSL refuses to support on the grounds of "anti-imperialism". Therefore, exposing the lies implicit in the PSL's position on Tibet helps to weaken the credibility of the libel and slander spread by the PSL about the Iranian proletariat.

Also, pointing out that Tibet now outranks Northern Ireland, Israeli-occupied Palestine, South Africa, Corsica, the Basque country, Lapland, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and every piece of American Indian territory as the single most heavily policed colonial territory in the world helps to illustrate how "colonialism" is not limited to the US and Western Europe, totally deflating the "anti-imperialist" ideology of the PSL, which is at the heart of its argument against supporting the embryotic revolutionary movement in Iran.

[Martin Blank]

I've addressed this before. The US market drives the health of all those markets you mentioned; the housing bubble in the US and its aftermath threw the rest of imperialism into disarray. That's simply because most other imperialist powers are directly dependent on US imperialism, as US imperialism has led the imperialist camp since 1956.

You are presenting this as a one-way street, and that's the problem. The fact is that the health of each component of the world capitalist system is dependent on the whole, and the whole of the system is dependent on more than just what happens on Wall Street. You're still thinking of world capitalism through the lens of 50 years ago; "globalization" succeeded in shifting the epicenter of the world economy away from the U.S. and, in some respects, decentralizing it. The U.S. may have led world imperialism in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but that ended in the 1990s with the rise of the European Union.


You would have a point if American capitalists were being dragged into wars they otherwise wouldn't have been a part of by a stronger imperialist force, but they aren't.

The corollary to this is that those "weaker" imperialists would have no choice but to be dragged into wars by American capitalism. The last time that happened was 1991 in the Gulf War. In the 1990s, the U.S. was dragged into the Balkans by "weaker" imperialists like Germany. The deployment of NATO forces in Afghanistan in 2001 was a mutual agreement; from the perspective of the world's Great Powers, al-Qa'ida was seen as a mutual threat that had already attacked one of their own.

But then we get to Iraq in 2003. Where were France and Germany, then? Where was Russia? Where was China? They were signing mutual defense pacts in Moscow and Berlin, and talking about the need to look after their own interests. Where was America's gravitas then? Why was it only a "coalition of the willing" and not a "coalition of the world"? I mean, if the U.S. really was that powerful, and France and Germany that weak, you'd think you would have seen French soldiers in Anbar and German soldiers in Kurdistan. But we didn't. Instead we saw these two rivals have the strength to not only stand independent of American imperialism, but take an antagonistic position ... then turn around and sign pacts with Moscow and Beijing.


You would have a point if, say, the Japanese stock market dictated the health of Wall Street at every turn, but it doesn't. These are the facts of imperialism, and that's why American imperialism is the greatest threat to the workers of all countries.

Actually, the health of both the Nikkei and the Hang Seng have a profound impact on the health of Wall Street at every turn. The latest example of this was two days ago, when both of those Asian markets dropped, followed later in the day by a 170-point drop on the Dow Jones. If we applied your logic here, one could indeed argue that the Japanese and Hong Kong capitalists dominate the U.S., not the other way around.

But then, stock markets are lousy barometers of anything other than the "confidence" of petty-bourgeois speculators these days.


This is meaningless.

It's only meaningless to you because you don't see that the world has shifted under your feet.


Sure, it's always a relative position, I never said otherwise. The point is that it's dominant place must determine the policies and positions of revolutionaries. Once we understand that American imperialism is dominant, we can combat capitalism more effectively, and that means opposing its advances in the situation in Iran.

Well, yes, if you accept one fallacy, then all other fallacies fall into place. I prefer to deal in facts and reality, thankyouverymuch.


Yes, I agree that the higher they climb, the farther they fall; yes, I agree that American imperialism is in crisis and will likely ruin itself in a few decades (if that). However, like I told Agrippa, our analysis must be on the present when it comes to things like Iran. The Iranian demonstrations are happening in the present, and so the makeup of imperialism in the present is most important.

It is important, so, like a skydiver, it's always good to know how close to the ground you are at any given moment.


I don't agree with that. I see history as having turning points and milestones.

Yes, "there are turning points and milestones", but that's not all there is. There are changes that happen in between the "turning points and milestones", and sometimes those changes actually yield the fundamental transformations, and the "turning points and milestones" come after the fact.


That may be so, but it would be a selective viewpoint. Why? Multiple other factors show that American imperialism is dominant: its initiation of imperialist invasions, its military power, its geopolitical influence (and ambition) in just about every region of the world and more. By the 50's, the US was engineering coups in Iran; this would have been simply unthinkable before the shifting power dynamics of imperialism since World War II. The Suez Canal conflict, only years after the CIA's coup in Iran, simply solidified the US as the leader of the imperialist camp. Britain and France were undeniably at the American bourgeoisie's behest, and I fail to see how this has changed since then.

The U.S. has been initiating imperialist invasions, projecting its military power and enforcing its geopolitical influence around the world since it formally entered the imperialist club in 1898. Again, this is not saying anything. What made American imperialism dominant after the Second World War was the absence of rivals. Germany, Japan, France and Britain, the four main rivals of the U.S. before 1939, had all been decimated by the war; the U.S. had not.

Here's an example of what I meant above about those changes yielding fundamental transformation in advance of the "milestones". The U.S. was the leading imperialist power beginning in 1946, not 1956. After it finally strangled British imperialism into its place as a junior partner, following the economic "Quiet War" of 1944-46, the U.S. was firmly in charge. It's only "rival", if one wishes to call them that, was the Soviet Union and its "camp" of "people's democracies".

But by the 1970s, countries like Germany, France and Japan had rebuilt their economies and presence in the world system to the point where they again began to rival Washington. The breakup of Bretton Woods was the first sign that the post-WWII imperialist order was coming to an end. The collapse of the USSR removed all doubt. The period of accumulation opened up after 1991, and the formation of the EU in 1992, further strengthened Germany and France, so that by 2001, you began to see open conflicts taking place within the "multilateralist" bodies, like the WTO and G8, between the Great Powers.

I can understand why you fail to see this. The fact is that most of the self-described socialist and communist organizations out there have failed to sufficiently analyze the shifts and transformations in world capitalism since the 1950s. I consider it a collective act of wilfull blindness, but that's me.


I agree with this. I have constantly reiterated my agreement with this, as a matter of fact.

Well, good. That's a start. Now you need to look and see exactly how far they've fallen and the effect that's had on its rivals.


Simply because France and Germany refused to go along with the invasion of Iraq when Italy, Poland, Spain (initially, before Aznar got booted), Japan (their deployment of limited troops was a big shift in Japanese foreign policy) and other countries did, does not suffice as proof of what you're saying. In fact, IIRC, French and German interests in Iraq were being foiled by the invasion, as Iraq did trade with the EU. The US bourgeoisie simply stepped in with brute force and enforced its interests. That may be a sign of coming decline or desperation, but it's also a sign of undeniable danger to the working class.

OK, let's look at among whom you're making comparisons. Poland (and most of the other countries covered in the "other countries" phrase) is by no means a Great Power state; it's more like a client state of the Anglo-American Axis. Japan, Italy and Spain are former Great Power states reduced to permanent junior partners of whomever offers them the best deal. Indeed, Italy has been such a country since the First World War, when it initially sided with the Central Powers, then switched to the Entente.

Yes, the American invasion of Iraq was a blow to French and German imperialism. But it was not a heavy enough blow to warrant starting a new World War over; Paris and Berlin simply moved their Iraqi investments slightly east, to Iran,... and then signed military pacts with each other, with Russia and with China. And, yes, American belligerence in the world is a mortal danger to the world's working class. But it is not the only one, and any major conflict that's started in the future will not be the sole responsibility of Washington.

At some point, the French and German imperialists will draw a line that, if the U.S. crosses it, will initiate an inter-imperialist world war. Where we seem to disagree is that you think this is very far off in the distant future. For all of our sakes, I hope you're right. But I doubt it.


So you deny how badly German capitalists were hit by a crisis caused by American mis-investment? That's the situation as it is, not as it fits into your worldview.

I don't deny they were hit by the crisis, and I don't deny it was badly. What I deny is that this was because of a dependency on American capitalism that goes beyond the reality of being a part of the world capitalist system. What I see is that they took a hit on the level that Britain and France did when the Great Depression occurred in 1929. Now, if you'd like to argue that France and Britain were dependent on American imperialism since the First World War, which it seemed to me you were aguing before (and since denied), we can re-open that subject.


Further, justify the assertion (not fact) that China is imperialist.

I never actually said China was imperialist in this discussion. What I did say was that they were a part of the cartel with France and German imperialism. However, if we were to take the five basic criteria of imperialism worked out by Lenin and apply them to China (as if they are the be-all and end-all), there is an argument to be made.


(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

Points (1) and (2) have been a basic reality in China since 1949, so there's no need to go into it here (unless you'd like to argue that China's monopolies don't "play a decisive role in economic life", or that there is no merger between banking capital and industrial capital, or that there is no "financial oligarchy"). Point (3) has, in recent years, come to pass, with Chinese investments in Africa, Latin America and Asia becoming central to the country's sustained productive capacity. With China's entry into the Quadruple Entente, you can say that Point (4) now applies to China. Point (5) existed before China's entry, so it only applies insofar as Beijing is carving out a place for itself within that "territorial division of the whole world" through the aforementioned investments.

But, personally, I tend to think there's more to imperialism as a world system than just these five points, so until I'm clear on this I'm not really going to call China imperialist.


Things have changed. The basics of imperialist power, however, has not. You look to German and French refusal to invade Iraq as some proof that America isn't the working class' greatest enemy, but the two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact the circumstances of the invasion show that the American bourgeoisie is still the dominant force in imperialism today.

Like it was in 1956.

Capitalism is the working class' greatest enemy, not America. At this moment in history, American imperialism is the most immediate enemy because it is the most actively belligerent of the imperialist powers. But that does not mean: a) that siding with whomever is opposing Washington is automatically socially-progressive, anti-imperialist or revolutionary, or b) that the U.S. is still the dominant force in imperialism today.

In other words, this isn't 1956 ... and the conjunctural "Global Class War" theory is as wrong now as it was then.


How, exactly, does this contradict my overall point?

First of all, you contradicted your overall point, which was that countries like France and Germany are too weak to resist the dictates of American imperialism. And yet, they are breaking U.S. sanctions and investing in Iran's oil and natural gas industries -- i.e., resisting the dictates of American imperialism. This is just one of several examples of how the Great Powers are showing they are strong enough to go against U.S. imperialism. And each of these examples contradicts your overall point.

[QUOTE=manic expression;1476849]You yourself said that the US' position of dominance was, in fact, relative, and I agreed with you in this post. Why wouldn't US-Saudi relations, then, also be relative? Your point on this is really tangential.

It would really do you well to make a habit of going back and reading the past exchanges before responding. It's helpful for keeping track of the discussion.

The section of the New York Times you quoted made a relative statement, and you were apparently using that statement to counter what I had cited about Sa'udi investments in the U.S., which in turn was done to counter your assertion that if those Sa'udi investments were removed that they would collapse the American economy -- and that this was somehow proof that capital investment of the kind that China, France and Russia have put into Iran's chief industries doesn't equal imperialist domination. My response was to say that this was not proof of the correctness of your argument, and used the lunch money analogy to back that up.

If this point became tangental, it's because you used such a threadbare and meaningless argument that the only valid response was to point that out.


So you're comparing German imperialism to American imperialism because Germany "has acted" in some form over the past 20 years? The point is that American imperialism constitutes a far greater threat ("relativism", as you agreed to previously) to the working class than any other force.

American imperialism is a more immediate threat because it is a more belligerent Great Power at this time. But they are not the only Great Power to act, which was my point -- a point that you were denying. And no imperialist power is less of a threat than any other; if the U.S. were to disappear from the map, the other Great Powers would scramble for the pieces and be just as much threats to the workers of the world. Again, you're making a moralistic and one-sided argument.


I never asserted that German capitalists care about workers more than American capitalists. Save that misrepresentation for your personal attacks against me.

No, you asserted, "They [German and Japanese imperialism] aren't doing so because they simply can't, not because they care more about Iraqi lives than American capitalists." I said that "caring" has nothing to do with it, and that such a moralistic approach should be saved for church. Why you chose to make that -- inability vs. caring -- to be the dichotomy of the argument, when I had already said their choice to not act belligerently was because they were getting what they wanted through other means, was yet another indicator of a moralistic method.


And what was then the behavior of the American imperialists? Stop looking at history so selectively.

By 1995, the U.S. began to realize they were being completely shut out of the Balkans, so they decided to get in while the getting was good. But all they ended up with out of the former Yugoslavia, in the end, was Kosovo and Montenegro.


And I continue to recognize that this does nothing to diminish my overall point, something you claimed to have accomplished with no support.

I think that people can read through the posts and see what I have and have not accomplished.


That's a completely meaningless (and dishonest) response. Deal with the facts I posted....

So now you're calling me a Nazi.

These two go together, so I grouped them together for the reply.

If I wanted to call you a Nazi, I would have called you a Nazi (or, at least, a fascist, which is more generic). As it is, I called you a national socialist -- small-n, small-s. That means your "socialism" subordinates class to nation and an amorphous, cross-class "people". It is a type of petty-bourgeois socialism that attempts to erase the class struggle and relegate it to a secondary status behind "national struggles". In this century, the two main branches of national socialism have been "Third Worldism" and "Anti-Imperialism". Both subordinate class to nation ... and thus subordinate the working class to the exploiting and oppressing classes.

Our Party is opposed on principle to this kind of phony "socialism", and we make no bones about ... oh, what was that term you used in your previous post?, "calling a spade a spade".


Except if you actually read the PSL's statement, it never explicitly or implicity expresses support for the Iranian regime.

But it's not specifically the PSL's statement we're discussing here. We're discussing the article that prompted this entire thread.

We all know this article would not have made it into print and on the PSL's website if there wasn't agreement on its political content. So, when we read passages like:

"The array of the class forces lined up behind the candidates is far more important than the electoral details.... Ahmadinejad's social base, on the other hand, is primarily among the lower sectors of the middle class, the urban poor and most people of all classes in the provinces and rural areas."

or

"But within the confines of capitalist relations, Ahmadinejad's political line represents more income and benefits for the poor."

or

"The demonstrations have become the rallying point for elements in Iranian society, mostly from the privileged classes, against the Islamic Republic regime and in favor of a pro-west, capitalist regime."

It becomes pretty clear who you're supporting.


And yet you haven't shown HOW or WHY the materialist analysis of imperialism has been "superseded".

It's not the materialist analysis I'm saying is superseded. It's your conjunctural analysis of where imperialism was that's been superseded. They are not one in the same; Marcy's "Global Class War" theory is not Lenin's Imperialism for modern times.


This rhetoric deserves some attention, but you should remember that such a shift is an easy way to denounce Iran for having some sort of "Tiananmen Square" and score political points for denouncing the Islamic Republic for a struggle within the Islamic Republic.

I do keep that in mind, and I have never denied that Washington is looking for a way to turn this to their advantage. Indeed, the WPA's statement on Iran emphasizes the fact that this is a danger. Where we disagree is over whether the protests now, as they are, represent that. If this protest movement was to turn into a kind of "color revolution", if the U.S. was to use the suppression of this protest movement as an excuse to intervene directly (not through paper declarations and press conferences, but actual intervention), you and I -- and, I suspect, a lot of people you're arguing with -- would be on the same side.

But that's not what's happening. On the contrary, we're seeing this movement very openly express opposition to American intervention (this was what the comparison of Mossadeg and Mousavi was about). They might want "American-style freedom", but they want it without the Americans -- without American intervention; without American domination. In other words, they want bourgeois democracy, but they want to do it themselves. That's a contradiction within the existing movement, but it's one that can open the door to more socially-progressive, genuinely anti-imperialist and revolutionary developments.

[Martin Blank]

A postscript:

In writing the responses to manic, I took the opportunity to re-read the article that started all of this debate. And I have to say that there was definitely one line in it that I agree with 110 percent. Indeed, that one line maxim, meant as a statement of principle applied against the protests in Iran, has a more general application. And it applies to the PSL itself. More to the point, it applies to the chest-thumping narrative we so often get from PSL members. To wit:...


The PSL is the most active, energetic, forward-looking, effective and relevant socialist organization in America today.

Comrade, you own member said it succinctly and said it best: "Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements."

Just a little food for thought from your friendly chef. :cool:

[khad]

Comrade, you own member said it succinctly and said it best: "Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements."

Just a little food for thought from your friendly chef. :cool:
What's the problem? Aside from a cheap shot, of course.

[manic expression]

And your response proves my point.

You mean your "point" that I need a (and I quote) "Waaaahmbulance"?


In that passage, I wrote (briefly, admittedly) about something that happens in the petty-bourgeois left a lot. You're not the first or only one to do, and you won't be the last (unfortunately). If you take it as a personal slight, it's only because you resemble the remark ... and know it.

So, according to you, it wasn't personally addressed against me at all. Except we have little gems such as these:

Wrong party, dumbass!

I suggest you heed it before making an even bigger ass of yourself.

let me respond to the one political point our useful idiot actually raised.

Once more, your own words speak for themselves.


If that's how you see it, then you really aren't understanding a damn thing.

It makes sense you wouldn't want to deal with that assessment, because the truth clearly makes you uncomfortable. When your underlying scorn for active and effective communist parties is blown, you retreat and mumble petty assumptions about my life. Really, this is nothing more than the behavior of the insecure.

And as we can see below, just as I said, we can see you've already started another personal crusade against the PSL.


As you can see, I wasn't even here yesterday evening. I had a number of meetings I had to attend with contacts and fellow workers. You'll understand that I don't give you all the details; I simply don't trust you enough.

On the broader scale, and speaking about what the WPA has done recently, aside from just completing one union organizing drive, we are in the middle of three others, as well as continuing areas of work that we inherited from the Communist League (in auto, with indigenous people, etc.). Just because we're not in the media doesn't mean we're doing nothing.

Meetings and "areas of work [you] inherited from the Communist League"? That explains a lot.

Congrats on your "one union organizing drive", just remember that whole economism thing; maybe if you give it a few more years you'll actually be able to remotely fulfill the duties of a communist party.


How does that saying go? "It's the quiet ones you have to watch out for"?

If it makes you feel better.


I don't think it changes anything at all. I use RevLeft as a place to think out arguments that are made in other circles and among workers. You are little more than a sounding board and a foil. That's why fucking with you and exposing what the petty-bourgeois left has to offer anyone bothering to look at your organization or any so similar. To be honest, it wouldn't really have mattered what group you belong to; I would have done the same thing to you anyway.

Yet another instance of hypocrisy. One minute, you're extrapolating the entirety of the PSL from the RevLeft posts of a candidate member, and the next you're saying RevLeft is little more than a place to think stuff out and "fuck with [posters]". It must be exhausting to change your views on things as much as you do.


The PSL is not unique in its petty-bourgeois arrogance; it's just that you're here, now, and open to being made an example of. That's all. It's nothing personal. It's a class thing ... which is why you don't understand.

More baseless anti-PSL slander. Like I said, such is the behavior of the truly insecure.


See, that's the thing. I've done better. I've organized better around better slogans. My history and record, and that of my fellow Party members, speaks for itself. You may not hear it, but that's more your problem than ours.

Is it "my" problem that you have no activist presence in any aspect of working-class struggle? Is it "my" problem that your list of party activities is so unimpressive that it actually makes me feel bad for you? Is it "my" problem that the WPA is invisible?


You're not saying anything here. It's all moral outrage and no analysis. Of course, American imperialism ultimately chose to escalate. You argued that it was a choice from the beginning, which it was not. The decision to escalate Vietnam was part of a factional conflict within the exploiting and oppressing classes, and a decision made only after a decade of lackluster compelled "commitment" that originated with a decision to assist the French.

Of course, American imperialism ultimately chose to escalate.

Thank you.

I'll get to your other post later.

[manic expression]

Because the WWP line,

Obviously you didn't hear me the first time. No one was talking to you, you can't just stick your nose wherever you want and expect people to take you seriously. That's probably why I no longer take you seriously.


Why else would you complain when I remain on-topic, on the grounds that I am "jumping in" and being "rude" and "distracting"

Because you ARE "jumping in" and "being rude and distracting". That's obvious to everyone reading this, so either have some respect for yourself or accept how immature you're acting.

And again, your anti-Chinese slander is simply off topic. You can have the last word, and since your last post was thoroughly insipid, it's no loss for me to afford you that. You can also think you won a debate in which you made a fool of yourself in, as it's more than fitting for you to be so delusional.

By the way, why don't you go ask all your Tibetan friends what I wrote to you in Mandarin? Aren't they supposed to know that "evil" language?

[Martin Blank]

Obviously, manic has yet to get over his embarrassment in this thread, so he keeps harping on pointless things. I won't bother with a response to most of it. Just a couple things to finish up:


Meetings and "areas of work [you] inherited from the Communist League"? That explains a lot.

Congrats on your "one union organizing drive", just remember that whole economism thing; maybe if you give it a few more years you'll actually be able to remotely fulfill the duties of a communist party.

We have plenty of work going on, but I see no reason why I have to spell it all out to you, especially since I don't trust you. Quite honestly, given your origins among the class enemy, all I really have to say is that it's none of your damn business what our working-class party is doing. Stick to the petty bourgeoisie, where you belong.

And as for acting like a communist party, just remember the words of your own member: "Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements". Think about that the next time you're wearing yourself out to build an ANSWER demo.


Is it "my" problem that you have no activist presence in any aspect of working-class struggle? Is it "my" problem that your list of party activities is so unimpressive that it actually makes me feel bad for you? Is it "my" problem that the WPA is invisible?

No, willful blindness is your problem. Seen it before.

[manic expression]

Obviously, manic has yet to get over his embarrassment in this thread, so he keeps harping on pointless things. I won't bother with a response to most of it. Just a couple things to finish up:

Or, to put this in perspective, your own words have already refuted your hypocritical positions. Now, you're continuing to back-track away from your previous comments and behavior, which was more than expected.


We have plenty of work going on, but I see no reason why I have to spell it all out to you, especially since I don't trust you. Quite honestly, given your origins among the class enemy, all I really have to say is that it's none of your damn business what our working-class party is doing. Stick to the petty bourgeoisie, where you belong.

Yes, you have "plenty" going on. A few meetings and "areas of work [you] inherited from the Communist League". Your obvious discomfort with the fact that your party is irrelevant just underlines my point.


And as for acting like a communist party, just remember the words of your own member: "Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements". Think about that the next time you're wearing yourself out to build an ANSWER demo.

No, I'd prefer to think about it when I'm selling newspapers to workers in the Bronx and Harlem. Or perhaps I'll think about it when I'm petitioning for Frances Villar, a revolutionary working-class candidate for NYC mayor. Maybe I'll even think about it when I'm helping the PSL stand up for victims of racist and reactionary police brutality.

But yeah, now that you mention it, I might think about it when I'm being part of the most important and most effective anti-imperialist movement in America, too.

I hope you have a blast with your "areas of work that [you] inherited from the Communist League". Pathetic.


No, willful blindness is your problem. Seen it before.

So it's my "willful blindness" that makes the WPA have no part in any form of visible activism today? Maybe it's my "willful blindness", combined by the "willful blindness" of the entire working class. Yeah, that makes more sense.

And just in case anyone's keeping score, Miles didn't respond on Vietnam this post, precisely because his own concession proves what I had been saying for the entire thread.

[Martin Blank]

Or, to put this in perspective, your own words have already refuted your hypocritical positions. Now, you're continuing to back-track away from your previous comments and behavior, which was more than expected.

I accomplished what I wanted to accomplish. It was obvious you weren't really interested in a political discussion when you started making snarky comments, so I changed my reasons for continuing the exchanges. And judging by the number of PMs, thank-yous and other messages I've received, I was right to do so.


Yes, you have "plenty" going on. A few meetings and "areas of work [you] inherited from the Communist League". Your obvious discomfort with the fact that your party is irrelevant just underlines my point.

Actually, I'm pretty damn comfortable with what we're doing. If there's any uncomfortability involved, it's only because I don't have much time to myself ... or to sit here and watch you squirm, which has become wonderful entertainment.


No, I'd prefer to think about it when I'm selling newspapers to workers in the Bronx and Harlem. Or perhaps I'll think about it when I'm petitioning for Frances Villar, a revolutionary working-class candidate for NYC mayor. Maybe I'll even think about it when I'm helping the PSL stand up for victims of racist and reactionary police brutality.

Been there. Done that. More to the point, we (and by "we" I mean the WPA, the League before us, and our individual members) have done these things better and on a more revolutionary basis.

One of our members ran as a candidate for the Board of Education here on the basis of workers' control of the public schools and got more votes than any other self-described socialist or communist candidate has gotten since the 1960s -- more votes than the PSL's candidate for president got nationally in 2004 or 2008. Moreover, she did it with the endorsement of every public school union here. (And, personally, I think she was the victim of election fraud, and that's why she didn't end up on the Board.)

You may "stand up" against police brutality, we organize against it, and our members have helped organize and build marches and protests against cop violence that have been in the hundreds and thousands. As far as I know, we're also the only organization whose members have actually organized successful armed workers' self-defense against police violence and intimidation in the last few decades.

It was our members who organized and co-organized the mass anti-fascist demonstrations in Ohio and Michigan that led to the formation of the Anti-Racist Action Network in 1994. (I'm the one who drafted ARANet's original four points of unity and its diversity statement.)

The last two times the Detroit teachers went on strike, we are the ones who organized labor/community support. When the autoworkers went out on strike in 1997, we organized support and solidarity (from support pickets to providing coffee and doughnuts). We continue to work closely with the brothers and sisters who organized the Soldiers of Solidarity and Delphi Workers Committee (an area of work we inherited from the League).

We continue to work with Russell Means and the Lakotah Freedom Movement, and remain the only organization to actually state their support for the self-determination of indigenous peoples inside the borders of the United States and work to make it a reality. In addition, our Lakotah comrades are translating Marx and our Party's basic documents into Lakotiyapi, both to further the preservation of the language and reach those living on the rez who don't read English well. (Another area of work we inherited from the League.)

This is only some of what we've done; I'm not including the work of the Red Star Society, our past work in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal, our antiwar work or any of our current and developing activity. This is kind of work we'll continue to do. We may not be self-aggrandizing and mug for the cameras, but we do our work and we do it well.

(Incidentally, I should point out that I sought authorization to release some of this information here. And it was a narrow vote; if you think I don't trust you, you should meet our Central Committee.)


But yeah, now that you mention it, I might think about it when I'm being part of the most important and most effective anti-imperialist movement in America, too.

Important? Effective? Really?! What has ANSWER accomplished, other than a few large protests? Have you stopped a war or imperialist intervention yet? Have you even slowed one down? Have you ended or rolled back racism anywhere? What have you accomplished?


I hope you have a blast with your "areas of work that [you] inherited from the Communist League". Pathetic.

Given what they gave us (see above), I am having a blast. I just hope I can keep up.


So it's my "willful blindness" that makes the WPA have no part in any form of visible activism today? Maybe it's my "willful blindness", combined by the "willful blindness" of the entire working class. Yeah, that makes more sense.

From where I'm sitting, apart from one or two ANSWER demos that have been held in the past few years, I don't see anything the PSL is doing, either. Sure, we get an occasional e-mail from someone in S. Dakota about a movie night, but that's about it. So where's the PSL's oh-so-visible activism? I don't see it. All I see is you asserting that the PSL is doing all this work, but apart from the Villar petitioning (which, as I've said before, is a sub-reformist effort) and past ANSWER stuff ("Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements"), I don't see anything.

Are you so uncomfortable with the lack of activity on the part of the PSL that you're trying to make everyone think we and others must be worse off?


And just in case anyone's keeping score, Miles didn't respond on Vietnam this post, precisely because his own concession proves what I had been saying for the entire thread.

That's because you didn't really say anything except agree that ultimately the U.S. chose to escalate, which I never denied and never rejected. However, if you want to talk about proving one's point, I've said from the beginning that your problem is willful blindness and looking at developments as a series of snapshots. The fact that you ignored the rest of the entire passage and only gave a one-sentence agreement with one sentence of what I wrote demonstrates that your understanding of the situation is about as thin as the sheet of newsprint you read it off of.

[manic expression]

I accomplished what I wanted to accomplish. It was obvious you weren't really interested in a political discussion when you started making snarky comments, so I changed my reasons for continuing the exchanges. And judging by the number of PMs, thank-yous and other messages I've received, I was right to do so.

You accomplished losing your temper, you accomplished exposing your party as irrelevant and you accomplished conceding the solitary significant point in this exchange. If you want to think your anarchist cheerleaders validate such a showing, do so.


Actually, I'm pretty damn comfortable with what we're doing. If there's any uncomfortability involved, it's only because I don't have much time to myself ... or to sit here and watch you squirm, which has become wonderful entertainment.You're comfortable? Is that why you lost your temper? Is that why you've tried to retreat from the majority of what you said a few posts up? Is that why you continue to make believe that vague points about an invisible party changes reality? Interesting logic.


Been there. Done that. More to the point, we (and by "we" I mean the WPA, the League before us, and our individual members) have done these things better and on a more revolutionary basis.Wait, here's another opportunity to refute your hypocrisy with your own words:

As you can see, I wasn't even here yesterday evening. I had a number of meetings I had to attend with contacts and fellow workers. You'll understand that I don't give you all the details; I simply don't trust you enough.

On the broader scale, and speaking about what the WPA has done recently, aside from just completing one union organizing drive, we are in the middle of three others, as well as continuing areas of work that we inherited from the Communist League (in auto, with indigenous people, etc.). Just because we're not in the media doesn't mean we're doing nothing.

Speaks for itself, really. Like I said before, your party's presence is so pathetic that it really does make me feel bad for you.


One of our members ran as a candidate for the Board of Education here on the basis of workers' control of the public schools and got more votes than any other self-described socialist or communist candidate has gotten since the 1960s -- more votes than the PSL's candidate for president got nationally in 2004 or 2008. Moreover, she did it with the endorsement of every public school union here. (And, personally, I think she was the victim of election fraud, and that's why she didn't end up on the Board.)That's nice. If it was as significant as you claim, I'm sure you can provide some sort of evidence backing your lofty claims. As it stands, your party launched no national campaigns, or none that anyone's ever heard of. Why would that be? The only possible explanation is that you're too insignificant enough to do so. That, or you don't want to reach workers nation-wide. It's one of those, we know that much.


You may "stand up" against police brutality, we organize against it, and our members have helped organize and build marches and protests against cop violence that have been in the hundreds and thousands. As far as I know, we're also the only organization whose members have actually organized successful armed workers' self-defense against police violence and intimidation in the last few decades.I guess you didn't get the memo, but "standing up" to police brutality means organizing against it through campaigns, marches and other activities (legal support and otherwise), and that's what the PSL does in many cities, and I know for a fact that it's essentially the only party in the NYC area to do so when workers need it. What do you have?


It was our members who organized and co-organized the mass anti-fascist demonstrations in Ohio and Michigan that led to the formation of the Anti-Racist Action Network in 1994. (I'm the one who drafted ARANet's original four points of unity and its diversity statement.)Now you're claiming responsibility for ARA? I worked closely with ARA in the northeast a few years back, and neither your party nor its predecessor was ever mentioned; NEFAC was, ABC was, the SP was, your party was not. No coincidence there. Even IF you were so instrumental in forming ARA (which I doubt, because there's nothing but hear-say here), you've had a microscopic to non-existent influence since that time.


The last two times the Detroit teachers went on strike, we are the ones who organized labor/community support. When the autoworkers went out on strike in 1997, we organized support and solidarity (from support pickets to providing coffee and doughnuts). We continue to work closely with the brothers and sisters who organized the Soldiers of Solidarity and Delphi Workers Committee (an area of work we inherited from the League).Great. Just remember what I said about economism.


We continue to work with Russell Means and the Lakotah Freedom Movement, and remain the only organization to actually state their support for the self-determination of indigenous peoples inside the borders of the United States and work to make it a reality. In addition, our Lakotah comrades are translating Marx and our Party's basic documents into Lakotiyapi, both to further the preservation of the language and reach those living on the rez who don't read English well. (Another area of work we inherited from the League.)The fact that you think you're the only organization to support American Indian self-determination is just funny. Anyway, aside from translating materials, what have you actually done? I never said your party didn't make statements, after all.


This is only some of what we've done; I'm not including the work of the Red Star Society, our past work in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal, our antiwar work or any of our current and developing activity. This is kind of work we'll continue to do. We may not be self-aggrandizing and mug for the cameras, but we do our work and we do it well.

(Incidentally, I should point out that I sought authorization to release some of this information here. And it was a narrow vote; if you think I don't trust you, you should meet our Central Committee.)The work you're not including is work no one's really heard of, just like all the other things you listed. Further, the fact that you have to get authorization to bring the slightest bit of information on what your party's actually doing just shows how disconnected it is.

Your Central Committee doesn't merely mistrust me, it apparently doesn't want workers to know what their organization is up to! On that front, you ARE doing a really good job.


Important? Effective? Really?! What has ANSWER accomplished, other than a few large protests? Have you stopped a war or imperialist intervention yet? Have you even slowed one down? Have you ended or rolled back racism anywhere? What have you accomplished?ANSWER has united workers from many different backgrounds and experiences to fight against the common enemy facing the working class today: imperialism. ANSWER has always pinpointed capitalism as the problem. In doing this, it has mobilized thousands upon thousands in opposition to imperialist slaughter. It does this better than any other organization in America, and indeed it is among the only organizations to do this with such a wide base of support in the country. It's obvious that you can't stand that.

To measure a working class movement by how many bourgeois decisions it has affected is just absurd, but given your irrational personal hatred of the PSL, I think we can expect such absurdity from Lord Miles and his crusade against active revolutionaries.


Given what they gave us (see above), I am having a blast. I just hope I can keep up.Given the fact that no one else knows or cares about what your party's doing, I just hope you're learning how to enjoy your own company.


From where I'm sitting, apart from one or two ANSWER demos that have been held in the past few years, I don't see anything the PSL is doing, either. Sure, we get an occasional e-mail from someone in S. Dakota about a movie night, but that's about it. So where's the PSL's oh-so-visible activism? I don't see it. All I see is you asserting that the PSL is doing all this work, but apart from the Villar petitioning (which, as I've said before, is a sub-reformist effort) and past ANSWER stuff ("Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements"), I don't see anything.The last time you claimed Frances Villar was a reformist you got schooled by multiple people here, so I doubt you want to go down that road again. The last time you said ANSWER didn't push revolutionary politics, you also got handled pretty badly, so I doubt you want to spread that slander again.

So in addition to running revolutionary candidates and reaching the workers through electoral activity (which your party simply cannot do on a national level, let alone in a significant manner...according to your own description), in addition to being a key part of the most important and effective anti-imperialist movement in America, in addition to opposing police brutality through mobilization of workers, the PSL organizes around the defense of revolutionary Cuba (as well as other countries in which the workers have won victories against capitalism), furthers and supports LGBT struggles against bigotry, is extremely active in fighting for immigrant workers' rights, has had great successes in tenants' rights campaigns, leads direct protests against the capitalist banks and their cronies, campaigns against capitalist deprivation of healthcare and education and other basic necessities, agitates against imperialism among veterans, organizes for and with labor unions and more.

Not only are you guilty of delusional visions on your inactive organization, but you're guilty of convincing yourself, against all evidence, that the PSL isn't the most active, energetic, effective, forward-looking revolutionary party in America today. You can slander the PSL all you want, it won't change facts.


Are you so uncomfortable with the lack of activity on the part of the PSL that you're trying to make everyone think we and others must be worse off?I didn't really try to make you think that you're worse off, I just finally got you to admit it.


That's because you didn't really say anything except agree that ultimately the U.S. chose to escalate, which I never denied and never rejected.Right, because you were so busy moving the goalposts that you couldn't figure out that I had been saying that the whole time. Thanks again.

[Lamanov]

We learn from Marx that class struggle takes on a "national character", that the proletariat must "constitute itself the nation"...

Is that an actual quote (or just another misinterpretation)?

:confused:

[manic expression]

Is that an actual quote (or just another misinterpretation)?

:confused:

Well, it's an actual quote from the Manifesto:

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

My point isn't that my interpretation is the only interpretation, my point was more that Marxism does not shun the idea of "the nation", it simply rejects the bourgeois understanding of the concept; thus, there is no reason to blindly call national liberation un-revolutionary or what have you.

[Martin Blank]

You accomplished losing your temper, you accomplished exposing your party as irrelevant and you accomplished conceding the solitary significant point in this exchange. If you want to think your anarchist cheerleaders validate such a showing, do so.

You have yet to show where I lost my temper. Everyone who has read this exchange knows who lost their shit in it. And, here's a hint, it wasn't me.


You're comfortable? Is that why you lost your temper? Is that why you've tried to retreat from the majority of what you said a few posts up? Is that why you continue to make believe that vague points about an invisible party changes reality? Interesting logic.

Again, if I was into psychobabble,...


Wait, here's another opportunity to refute your hypocrisy with your own words:....

I asked around and no one saw any real harm in mentioning what I mentioned. I still don't trust you, which is why I didn't give details. And just because you and other elements of the left don't know doesn't mean that workers don't. You are not workers -- never have been, never will be.


That's nice. If it was as significant as you claim, I'm sure you can provide some sort of evidence backing your lofty claims. As it stands, your party launched no national campaigns, or none that anyone's ever heard of. Why would that be? The only possible explanation is that you're too insignificant enough to do so. That, or you don't want to reach workers nation-wide. It's one of those, we know that much.

Yes, yurroner, I can provide all sorts of documentary evidence for your judgment. But I see no point. Even if I did, you're not going to be convinced by it. Like with Iran, you'll find any excuse to dismiss, oppose and attack.

The WPA was only formed six months ago, and we didn't have the "advantage" of ripping off a national coalition that other people built (wouldn't have wanted that one anyway).


I guess you didn't get the memo, but "standing up" to police brutality means organizing against it through campaigns, marches and other activities (legal support and otherwise), and that's what the PSL does in many cities, and I know for a fact that it's essentially the only party in the NYC area to do so when workers need it. What do you have?

I did get the memo. I also know that your definition of "standing up" means begging on your knees for "civilian review boards" that do nothing to actually stop police violence, only legitimize it.


Now you're claiming responsibility for ARA? I worked closely with ARA in the northeast a few years back, and neither your party nor its predecessor was ever mentioned; NEFAC was, ABC was, the SP was, your party was not. No coincidence there. Even IF you were so instrumental in forming ARA (which I doubt, because there's nothing but hear-say here), you've had a microscopic to non-existent influence since that time.

Those of us who were instrumental in the formation of ARANet were involved in other organizations at the time (the League and WPA were years off in the making). But that was still our work and it is still our legacy -- especially since we had to drag the organization we were members of into ARANet. And, yes, we left ARANet in late 1995, after a dispute with the liberals in Columbus. The network continued, but it was never the same after Columbus got through with it.


Great. Just remember what I said about economism.

As long as you remember what your own comrade said about street demonstrations.


The fact that you think you're the only organization to support American Indian self-determination is just funny. Anyway, aside from translating materials, what have you actually done? I never said your party didn't make statements, after all.

Sorry, by mutual agreement between us and the RoL, we don't talk about what we do with them beyond language-preservation work and support. And where is the PSL's statement of support for the Republic of Lakotah?


The work you're not including is work no one's really heard of, just like all the other things you listed. Further, the fact that you have to get authorization to bring the slightest bit of information on what your party's actually doing just shows how disconnected it is.

We're talking about bringing this information here, not making it public in general. We don't trust the petty-bourgeois left. Given the experiences we've had with you over the years, a lot of our members think half of you are cops and the other half are merely too stupid to be cops.


Your Central Committee doesn't merely mistrust me, it apparently doesn't want workers to know what their organization is up to! On that front, you ARE doing a really good job.

See above.


ANSWER has united workers from many different backgrounds and experiences to fight against the common enemy facing the working class today: imperialism. ANSWER has always pinpointed capitalism as the problem. In doing this, it has mobilized thousands upon thousands in opposition to imperialist slaughter. It does this better than any other organization in America, and indeed it is among the only organizations to do this with such a wide base of support in the country. It's obvious that you can't stand that.

"Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements". You've done nothing but waste a lot of rubber, cardboard, newsprint, canvas and shoe leather, and you have nothing to show for it. Your statement above proves that. You've changed nothing. You've affected nothing. You're not important and you're not effective.


To measure a working class movement by how many bourgeois decisions it has affected is just absurd, but given your irrational personal hatred of the PSL, I think we can expect such absurdity from Lord Miles and his crusade against active revolutionaries.

If you were a working class movement instead of a petty-bourgeois protest front, and were active revolutionaries instead of just active, you might have a point.


Given the fact that no one else knows or cares about what your party's doing, I just hope you're learning how to enjoy your own company.

Keep thinking that. I mean it. Please, keep thinking that. The more you do, the more you're out of our way.


The last time you claimed Frances Villar was a reformist you got schooled by multiple people here, so I doubt you want to go down that road again. The last time you said ANSWER didn't push revolutionary politics, you also got handled pretty badly, so I doubt you want to spread that slander again.

Wow! Those hallucinogens the PSL hands out must be good. If you want a second round on the PSL's sub-reformism, bring it on.


So in addition to running revolutionary candidates and reaching the workers through electoral activity (which your party simply cannot do on a national level, let alone in a significant manner...according to your own description), in addition to being a key part of the most important and effective anti-imperialist movement in America, in addition to opposing police brutality through mobilization of workers, the PSL organizes around the defense of revolutionary Cuba (as well as other countries in which the workers have won victories against capitalism), furthers and supports LGBT struggles against bigotry, is extremely active in fighting for immigrant workers' rights, has had great successes in tenants' rights campaigns, leads direct protests against the capitalist banks and their cronies, campaigns against capitalist deprivation of healthcare and education and other basic necessities, agitates against imperialism among veterans, organizes for and with labor unions and more.

You really have deluded yourself. You run reformist candidates on a sub-reformist platform (and most of the time can't even get them listed on the ballot, fercrissakes!), control an antiwar front that's only known for wasting resources and begging the ruling class, and tail petty-bourgeois movements around the world because it cannot build anything remotely effective here. That's what you do. You may count all that as "activity", but it's meaningless activity -- it's pointless activity if there's nothing achieved by it. And that is what the PSL has achieved: nothing, zero, zip, nada, nix.

We may not have a lot to show for the work we've done -- except the people who survived Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike because of the aid and relief the Red Star Society delivered; except some new unions and older ones that staged successful strike action; except an anti-fascist coalition that, in spite of its problems, continues to do some good work to this day; except the support and assistance we've provided to dozens of local and national movements and organizations -- but at least we don't delude ourselves into thinking that this good work means more than it does.

Like I said, we do our work quietly, humbly and with an understanding that each project and campaign is only a part of a larger strategy. We are respected (not necessarily liked, but respected) for that by every worker who we've worked with over the years. We can walk into neighborhoods and workplaces, and strike up conversations with our brothers and sisters that are frank and honest, not contrived and guarded. That is the difference between your method of work and ours. We're not a bunch of parasites looking for fame and glamor, like you and the bulk of the petty-bourgeois left. I know you can't understand that method of functioning. That is why you fail.


Not only are you guilty of delusional visions on your inactive organization, but you're guilty of convincing yourself, against all evidence, that the PSL isn't the most active, energetic, effective, forward-looking revolutionary party in America today. You can slander the PSL all you want, it won't change facts.

You're active, I agree with that. And you're energetic. But you're also ineffective, politically-stunted and sub-reformist. And it's not slander to say that; those are the facts. There is nothing revolutionary about the PSL, just as there is nothing revolutionary about the WWP, CPUSA, etc. You and the other PSLers will spend your entire lives building street demonstrations and protest coalitions, because that's all your organization knows how to do. Yes, that, too, is a fact. No, you cannot change it.


I didn't really try to make you think that you're worse off, I just finally got you to admit it.

The only thing I "admitted" was what I've said all along: we've done all of the same things the PSL does, only with better quality and principles. If you think that makes us "worse off", then that says everything that needs to be said about you.


Right, because you were so busy moving the goalposts that you couldn't figure out that I had been saying that the whole time. Thanks again.

You've spent this entire debate ducking and dodging the real issues, proving again how intellectually bankrupt and dishonest you are. I take your "Thanks again" comment to mean you're ending this. So be it. It's probably for the best. You've failed to convince anyone of your position. And more than that, you've failed to teach anyone anything other than that you're a "spoiled brat" (quote from several PMs I received). Now, I don't think you're a spoiled brat; I think you are exactly what you are: a petty-bourgeois leftist. Take it as you will.

[manic expression]

You have yet to show where I lost my temper. Everyone who has read this exchange knows who lost their shit in it. And, here's a hint, it wasn't me.

I've done that multiple times, which is exactly why you started back-tracking and subsequently getting refuted by your own words.

Sounds like someone should call the Waaaahmbulance for you.

Sound familiar?


Again, if I was into psychobabble,...You'd what? Analyze why you keep backing up and contradicting yourself?


I asked around and no one saw any real harm in mentioning what I mentioned. I still don't trust you, which is why I didn't give details. And just because you and other elements of the left don't know doesn't mean that workers don't. You are not workers -- never have been, never will be.You don't give details because the details are embarrassing. You've tried to tap-dance around every issue, and your party's irrelevance tops the list. Remember what I said you need to analyze?


Yes, yurroner, I can provide all sorts of documentary evidence for your judgment. But I see no point. Even if I did, you're not going to be convinced by it. Like with Iran, you'll find any excuse to dismiss, oppose and attack.Right, you won't show me evidence, most likely because it disputes all the rose-colored praise you heaped on your lethargic organization. Again, your insecurity is more than palpable.


The WPA was only formed six months ago, and we didn't have the "advantage" of ripping off a national coalition that other people built (wouldn't have wanted that one anyway).Being conveniently vague again, I see. The PSL didn't rip off anything, it took up the struggle against imperialism more eagerly than any other revolutionary organization in America, and like I said, that's what you can't stand.


I did get the memo. I also know that your definition of "standing up" means begging on your knees for "civilian review boards" that do nothing to actually stop police violence, only legitimize it.No, it means exactly what it means: standing up for workers against the capitalist state. Your view on things changes so quickly, though, that I'm sure you'll come up with yet another twisted way to twist my words; I hear that's less difficult than making an honest argument.


Those of us who were instrumental in the formation of ARANet were involved in other organizations at the time (the League and WPA were years off in the making). But that was still our work and it is still our legacy -- especially since we had to drag the organization we were members of into ARANet. And, yes, we left ARANet in late 1995, after a dispute with the liberals in Columbus. The network continued, but it was never the same after Columbus got through with it.So you're taking responsibility for something neither the League nor the WPA had anything to do with. Nice to know.


As long as you remember what your own comrade said about street demonstrations.I do remember it, precisely because it validates the PSL's anti-imperialist work: street demonstrations are only a fraction of what the PSL does, and I've already shown as much here. You simply can't stand it, so you ignore it and retreat to your regular slander.


Sorry, by mutual agreement between us and the RoL, we don't talk about what we do with them beyond language-preservation work and support. And where is the PSL's statement of support for the Republic of Lakotah?How convenient, another excuse as to why you can't outline your party's "activity". You've tried that before, remember?

Here are some things you might find interesting:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/DocServer/Issue6_final.pdf?docID=921

In addition, Native Americans in Pine Ridge and all over the country deserve massive reparations and control over the conditions under which they live.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5489

Thirty-one years ago the Lakota elders asked for help and protection from the GOON squad that was terrorizing the Lakota Nation. I, along with many others, responded to that call. I simply responded to a call to help others protect our lands, culture and traditions. I ask that you not loose focus on the real issue, which is that people suffering extreme hardships need not be. Even today we see children, women and elders being murdered in Pine Ridge and Belfast, on Big Mountain in Navajo country and in Basque country in Spain. And all in the name of justice


We're talking about bringing this information here, not making it public in general. We don't trust the petty-bourgeois left. Given the experiences we've had with you over the years, a lot of our members think half of you are cops and the other half are merely too stupid to be cops.What better way to shield your insecurity than with paranoia and self-righteousness? I guess if it makes you feel better.


"Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements". You've done nothing but waste a lot of rubber, cardboard, newsprint, canvas and shoe leather, and you have nothing to show for it. Your statement above proves that. You've changed nothing. You've affected nothing. You're not important and you're not effective.And you've done nothing but waste a lot of hot air slandering and ignoring what the PSL actually does. Street demonstrations, as part of a wider anti-imperialist campaign, and as a vehicle for reaching the masses with revolutionary politics, do form a key part of revolutionary movements.

So yes, it is important and it is effective. That's what you can't stand.


If you were a working class movement instead of a petty-bourgeois protest front, and were active revolutionaries instead of just active, you might have a point.More baseless slander from someone who's too embarrassed to face facts.


Keep thinking that. I mean it. Please, keep thinking that. The more you do, the more you're out of our way.It's hard to be "in your way" when you don't have one.


Wow! Those hallucinogens the PSL hands out must be good. If you want a second round on the PSL's sub-reformism, bring it on.Why? You already lost.


You really have deluded yourself. You run reformist candidates on a sub-reformist platform (and most of the time can't even get them listed on the ballot, fercrissakes!), control an antiwar front that's only known for wasting resources and begging the ruling class, and tail petty-bourgeois movements around the world because it cannot build anything remotely effective here. That's what you do. You may count all that as "activity", but it's meaningless activity -- it's pointless activity if there's nothing achieved by it. And that is what the PSL has achieved: nothing, zero, zip, nada, nix.More slander. It's funny how much it shows your insecurity and bitterness.

Our candidates are not reformist. Frances Villar declared her aim to destroy capitalism in her announcement for NYC mayor. ANSWER opposes imperialism and brings revolutionary principles to workers from many different backgrounds and experiences, all of whom are mobilized to fight their common enemy. The PSL is building something more than remotely effective here, and I've shown that before, you just shut it out because the truth hurts.

Any more slander for us, Lord Miles, anti-PSL Crusader?


We may not have a lot to show for the work we've done -- except the people who survived Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike because of the aid and relief the Red Star Society delivered; except some new unions and older ones that staged successful strike action; except an anti-fascist coalition that, in spite of its problems, continues to do some good work to this day; except the support and assistance we've provided to dozens of local and national movements and organizations -- but at least we don't delude ourselves into thinking that this good work means more than it does.So you're taking responsibility for survivors of Hurricane Katrina, just like you took responsibility for something your party had nothing to do with (oh, wait, you listed that above, too). Shameless. Oh, and please read up on economism, the fact that you're so oblivious to it makes me feel even more bad for you.

By the way, sending aid to victims of hurricanes is very admirable, but that's hardly revolutionary; Christian and liberal charity groups do the exact same thing. Maybe you should just drop all pretenses of being a revolutionary party (because you aren't one), and just become a full-fledged charity instead.


Like I said, we do our work quietly, humbly and with an understanding that each project and campaign is only a part of a larger strategy. We are respected (not necessarily liked, but respected) for that by every worker who we've worked with over the years. We can walk into neighborhoods and workplaces, and strike up conversations with our brothers and sisters that are frank and honest, not contrived and guarded. That is the difference between your method of work and ours. We're not a bunch of parasites looking for fame and glamor, like you and the bulk of the petty-bourgeois left. I know you can't understand that method of functioning. That is why you fail.Your work is "quiet" and "humble" because it's usually empty and irrelevant. You're more guilty of economism than any other party I know, you take responsibility for things your party had absolutely (I repeat, absolutely) nothing to do with, you count charity work as revolutionary, you brag about having conversations with people. This really, in all honesty, makes me feel bad for you and the people deluded enough to work with you.


You're active, I agree with that. And you're energetic. But you're also ineffective, politically-stunted and sub-reformist. And it's not slander to say that; those are the facts. There is nothing revolutionary about the PSL, just as there is nothing revolutionary about the WWP, CPUSA, etc. You and the other PSLers will spend your entire lives building street demonstrations and protest coalitions, because that's all your organization knows how to do. Yes, that, too, is a fact. No, you cannot change it.More illogical, irrational slander. I've dealt with this indignant bluster before, and it was just as absurd and incorrect then as it is now.


The only thing I "admitted" was what I've said all along: we've done all of the same things the PSL does, only with better quality and principles. If you think that makes us "worse off", then that says everything that needs to be said about you.Your incredibly futile attempts to paint your party as anything but irrelevant was an unconscious admission of the facts. By finally, after much hesitation and indecision, laying out the undeniable inactivity of your organization, you proved what I was saying.


You've spent this entire debate ducking and dodging the real issues, proving again how intellectually bankrupt and dishonest you are. I take your "Thanks again" comment to mean you're ending this. So be it. It's probably for the best. You've failed to convince anyone of your position. And more than that, you've failed to teach anyone anything other than that you're a "spoiled brat" (quote from several PMs I received). Now, I don't think you're a spoiled brat; I think you are exactly what you are: a petty-bourgeois leftist. Take it as you will.If you require the support of your (anarchist) cheerleaders after proving everything I had been saying (most notably that point on Vietnam that you inadvertantly agreed to after blindly raging against it for multiple posts), so be it. Like I said, the inactivity and irrelevance of your party makes me feel bad for you, so it's good that you have some (anarchist) shoulders to lean on now.

[Martin Blank]

So, as we can see, manic expression still won't admit he lost the political fight. In fact, it would be more appropriate now to call him "manic panic", since he's desperately scrambling (and failing) to find any way to make the personal mud stick.

As I said before, people can read this exchange and see who made the political argument ... and who thrashed around like a petulant child whose ice cream fell on the ground. Now all he can do is sputter about how every organization but his is "irrelevant" (trust me, this is the meaning behind all of his attacks on us -- he thinks this of every group other than his own, and he'll think it of them if he changes groups), in spite of the fact that none of the work he or his chosen group has done in the last five years has really meant anything to anyone. It hasn't advanced the class struggle one iota. It's only allowed a bunch of petty bourgeois and young people the opportunity to feel good and think they've actually accomplished something. (We can excuse the young comrades for not knowing any better.)

What it has also done is continued the process begun by their predecessors of lowering the standards of what constitutes revolutionary activity. According to manic panic (and his colleagues), begging the capitalists to roll the clock back to the mid-1960s, shilling for every two-bit nationalist that gives Washington the finger, and giving the capitalist state a fresh coat of paint is considered being the most "relevant", "forward-thinking" and "revolutionary" you can be, but organizing workers, African Americans, indigenous people, women, young workers, LGBT, etc., to fight for their liberation on both the political and economic battlefield, and doing work that actually impacts the lives of working people, is deemed "irrelevant".

Translation of manic's position: Fuck the workers. This, in the end, is the entire meaning of his attack. All that matters to him is what his sect tells him to think, and if someone from outside of that group is accomplishing something, it must be "irrelevant".

Our Party was formed at the beginning of this year, but many of our members have been key organizers, activists and fighters for our class for decades. The work we've done is our work -- more often than not done on our terms and with our method, even though we were members of other organizations. So, yes, we claim responsibility for what we have accomplished, even when it was done as part of another organization, because it was what we did. Unlike the petty-bourgeois socialist sects, our Party is defined by its principles and its members, not by a sacrosanct "line" that has no connection to the real world today.

Yes, we are numerically smaller than the PSL, but they also have five years headstart. More relevant to the discussion, though, is what they've done with the last five years. They've made no impact on the class struggle at all. I cannot think of any group of working people, or find such similar through the pages of their newspaper, that can point to the PSL and say, "If it wasn't for them, we'd have been beaten (or worse)". But we can. That, more than anything else, defines relevancy.

So, manic, you're welcome to your opinions. You are the one who will have to reconcile them with the real world at some point. Given your class background, I expect your "reconciliation" will be with your class brethren when you finally join the ranks of your fellow managers and yuppie professionals. It may be a few more years before you finally put away the Che Guevara t-shirts and don your exploiter's suit, but it will happen.

And when it does, we'll still be doing what we've always done: organize, educate and agitate to liberate. It's just that, at that point, you'll be the target.

Now, let's see if there's actually anything worth responding to in your comments....


The PSL didn't rip off anything, it took up the struggle against imperialism more eagerly than any other revolutionary organization in America, and like I said, that's what you can't stand.

Ooh, here's one.

The PSL did not establish or build ANSWER in its formative (and arguably best) years. The Workers World Party did. You guys took it in the divorce -- and, from what some WWP members I know have said, it wasn't a mutual agreement.

OK, let's see if there are any others.

Ah, here's another gem:...


By the way, sending aid to victims of hurricanes is very admirable, but that's hardly revolutionary; Christian and liberal charity groups do the exact same thing. Maybe you should just drop all pretenses of being a revolutionary party (because you aren't one), and just become a full-fledged charity instead.

Yeah, fuck all those Black workers! They should have just been left to fend for themselves. Didn't they know there was an ANSWER demo in D.C. that weekend? They're so irrelevant. They should just do what we did and demand that FEMA help them out.

Guess that's about it. Everything else is either covered above or can be addressed by simply going back and reading the previous posts. Well, it's been fun, manic. I mean, really. Thank you. You've single-handedly given me another bar of positive reputation on here. If you're ever in Detroit, let me know. Maybe I'll buy you a beer. Who knows?

[AvanteRedGarde]

Both of you guys and your parties are fucking irrelevant. Americans don't know who you are nor do they particularly want to. Any fucking asshole, excuse me "worker," can google search "working class," "socialism," "class struggle," etc. and find your websites and 10 others basically exactly like it. It's not like your views are made inaccessible. They're hardly mutually exclusive either.

Whereas your views (outside of sectarian interest) basically line up 90% of the time, you're fighting over who does more and better and "revolutionary" work---on a fucking internet forum--- and even though the support either one of your parties has, or your parties and 10 other combined, is barely minimal.

The pathetic thing is that you're serious. You are sad caricatures of yourselves.

[Agrippa]

No one was talking to youNo "talking" is occurring. I am pressing little plastic rectangles (probably produced in a sweat-shop factory in "socialist", "anti-imperialist" China) that are sending signals to an electronic device, which cause tiny light-generators to arrange black and white light in a certain way as to form words. More importantly, I am doing so on a public Internet forum. If you wish to have a private conversation with Miles, please use the "private message" function. If you wish to create an exclusive "PSL vs. WPA" discussion group and ban all third parties, the software-design of the message board supports such an endeavor.


you can't just stick your nose wherever you want and expect people to take you seriously.The people of Iran (and Tibet) should tell that to your party.


Because you ARE "jumping in" and "being rude and distracting". That's obvious to everyone reading this, so either have some respect for yourself or accept how immature you're acting.You have a very "rude and distracting" perspective on how message boards are supposed to work. This isn't a private conversation conducted over AIM or Skype. It's a public forum, like in Ancient Greece. When the US and USSR both decided to invade Germany, did the SS sit around going "hey guys, that's not fair!"? If Gojira and Angirus decided to dog-pile King Gidorah, would King Gidorah just lay there and whine about how Angirus is being "rude"?

This is like that video game that's inexplicably popular among members of the current generation, the one where Nintendo characters fight each other on floating platforms. Sometimes a PSL kid is having a lightsabre duel witha show-boating ultra-left activist and a kooky, quasi-third positionist eco-Marxist who's named after a 16th century occultist comes along with a sledgehammer. Deal with it. Or better yet, follow the advice of a terrible anarchist indie rock band and "get off the Internet".


since your last post was thoroughly insipidCalling someone's argument "insipid", and then getting all of your buddies in the PSL to "thank" your post (I may have significantly less thanked posts than you, but none of them are from my fellow party-members...) is not the same as demonstrating that their argument is insipid and then rubbing it in their face. You can't skip the "proving the argument insipid" step and go straight to the "rubbing it in my face" step. The only people who I have "exposed myself as a fool to" are your fellow-party members, who think the whole world is foolish for not following the botched mechanics of their fool ideology.

If you're worried about my comments on Tibet being "off-topic", I challenge you to contribute to the "Free Tibet" topic in the History forum. There, I will be happy to demonstrate that I know much more about Tibet than you, as I'm sure has already been demonstrated to the satisfaction of this entire message board.

Have you read any of the articles or books I reccomended, or are you too much of a closed-monded bigot?


By the way, why don't you go ask all your Tibetan friends what I wrote to you in Mandarin? Aren't they supposed to know that "evil" language?If I wanted to harass historically oppressed ethnic groups with the cultural symbols of their oppressor, I'd dress up like a Klansman and walk into a black church.

Edit: I must add, that your decision to randomly declare the subject of Tibet "off-topic" just as I had gained the upper-hand in the debate, after you yourself started a flamefest on Tibet (something I made only a passing reference to) which you contributed four or five lengthy posts to, has shown itself to be totally disengenuous and oppertunistic, given that the plight and exploitation of the Tibetan proletariat and peasantry at the hands of the PRC is more "on the topic" of proletarian struggles within Iran, a PRC client-state, than your egotistical dick-measuring contest with members of the WPA - something that has filled up three or four pages of this thread. How many Iranians do you think there are who identify with (especially Muslim) Tibetans? Compare that to the number of Iranians who have even heard of the PSL, (or the WPA) much less view it as relevant to their political struggle.

[manic expression]

So, as we can see, manic expression still won't admit he lost the political fight. In fact, it would be more appropriate now to call him "manic panic", since he's desperately scrambling (and failing) to find any way to make the personal mud stick.

What about Vietnam? Oh, right, you agreed with my position on that. Thanks again.


As I said before, people can read this exchange and see who made the political argument ... and who thrashed around like a petulant child whose ice cream fell on the ground. Now all he can do is sputter about how every organization but his is "irrelevant" (trust me, this is the meaning behind all of his attacks on us -- he thinks this of every group other than his own, and he'll think it of them if he changes groups), in spite of the fact that none of the work he or his chosen group has done in the last five years has really meant anything to anyone. It hasn't advanced the class struggle one iota. It's only allowed a bunch of petty bourgeois and young people the opportunity to feel good and think they've actually accomplished something. (We can excuse the young comrades for not knowing any better.)

What it has also done is continued the process begun by their predecessors of lowering the standards of what constitutes revolutionary activity. According to manic panic (and his colleagues), begging the capitalists to roll the clock back to the mid-1960s, shilling for every two-bit nationalist that gives Washington the finger, and giving the capitalist state a fresh coat of paint is considered being the most "relevant", "forward-thinking" and "revolutionary" you can be, but organizing workers, African Americans, indigenous people, women, young workers, LGBT, etc., to fight for their liberation on both the political and economic battlefield, and doing work that actually impacts the lives of working people, is deemed "irrelevant".

All that is precisely what your party doesn't do. That's precisely what the PSL is doing. The fact that you still can't comprehend this is a sad commentary on your ever-changing (but always silly) views on reality.

Oh, and let's talk about "lowering standards", shall we?

Sounds like someone should call the Waaaahmbulance for you.

Obviously, you're a hypocritical hack, your own words have refuted you time and again. You have nothing, you do nothing.


Translation of manic's position: Fuck the workers. This, in the end, is the entire meaning of his attack. All that matters to him is what his sect tells him to think, and if someone from outside of that group is accomplishing something, it must be "irrelevant".

More slander. Not worth my time.


Our Party was formed at the beginning of this year, but many of our members have been key organizers, activists and fighters for our class for decades. The work we've done is our work -- more often than not done on our terms and with our method, even though we were members of other organizations. So, yes, we claim responsibility for what we have accomplished, even when it was done as part of another organization, because it was what we did. Unlike the petty-bourgeois socialist sects, our Party is defined by its principles and its members, not by a sacrosanct "line" that has no connection to the real world today.

Your party isn't the only thing in question here, its predecessor is, as well. What has it done? As we have seen, nothing relevant, nothing effective. Just a whole lot of hot air from a hypocrite, that's all. If you actually believe your organization (or its predecessor) has accomplished anything, do so, you obviously need such delusionals to sleep at night.


Yes, we are numerically smaller than the PSL, but they also have five years headstart. More relevant to the discussion, though, is what they've done with the last five years. They've made no impact on the class struggle at all. I cannot think of any group of working people, or find such similar through the pages of their newspaper, that can point to the PSL and say, "If it wasn't for them, we'd have been beaten (or worse)". But we can. That, more than anything else, defines relevancy.

It's not really about numbers, it never has been. As to your slanderous claim that "they've made no impact on the class struggle", allow me to repeat myself:

So in addition to running revolutionary candidates and reaching the workers through electoral activity (which your party simply cannot do on a national level, let alone in a significant manner...according to your own description), in addition to being a key part of the most important and effective anti-imperialist movement in America, in addition to opposing police brutality through mobilization of workers, the PSL organizes around the defense of revolutionary Cuba (as well as other countries in which the workers have won victories against capitalism), furthers and supports LGBT struggles against bigotry, is extremely active in fighting for immigrant workers' rights, has had great successes in tenants' rights campaigns, leads direct protests against the capitalist banks and their cronies, campaigns against capitalist deprivation of healthcare and education and other basic necessities, agitates against imperialism among veterans, organizes for and with labor unions and more.

Have fun running away from the facts once more.


So, manic, you're welcome to your opinions. You are the one who will have to reconcile them with the real world at some point. Given your class background, I expect your "reconciliation" will be with your class brethren when you finally join the ranks of your fellow managers and yuppie professionals. It may be a few more years before you finally put away the Che Guevara t-shirts and don your exploiter's suit, but it will happen.

Personal insults based on nothing but an irrational hatred for anything PSL-related. Lord Miles and his anti-PSL Crusade rides again. Just for the record, I have no problem defending the legacy of Che Guevara, even though Miles and his non-existent organization seem utterly unable to do this: act like revolutionaries.


And when it does, we'll still be doing what we've always done: organize, educate and agitate to liberate. It's just that, at that point, you'll be the target.

This is really, really funny. You actually think you're doing something substantial? Let's see what that means IN YOUR WORDS:

On the broader scale, and speaking about what the WPA has done recently, aside from just completing one union organizing drive, we are in the middle of three others, as well as continuing areas of work that we inherited from the Communist League (in auto, with indigenous people, etc.). Just because we're not in the media doesn't mean we're doing nothing.

Oh, let's not forget those all-important "meetings" you have. How active. How revolutionary. How relevant.

Like I said, I kind of feel bad for you, so if you want to delude yourself into believing you have any relevance to class struggle, go ahead.


The PSL did not establish or build ANSWER in its formative (and arguably best) years. The Workers World Party did. You guys took it in the divorce -- and, from what some WWP members I know have said, it wasn't a mutual agreement.

That's because the WWP didn't want to work with ANSWER as the PSL did; the PSL didn't exist when ANSWER was formed, it simply took a driving role in the organization like no other revolutionary party has.

Your desparate nit-picking just exposes your bitterness further.


Yeah, fuck all those Black workers! They should have just been left to fend for themselves. Didn't they know there was an ANSWER demo in D.C. that weekend? They're so irrelevant. They should just do what we did and demand that FEMA help them out.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Charity work is admirable, but that's also the work of liberal and religious groups. If you think that charity work makes your group revolutionary, you're just insane.

But we already knew that.

I'd tell you to go back and read my posts with more care, but since you're so eager to employ naked slander and lies, it's not really worth it.


Guess that's about it. Everything else is either covered above or can be addressed by simply going back and reading the previous posts. Well, it's been fun, manic. I mean, really. Thank you. You've single-handedly given me another bar of positive reputation on here. If you're ever in Detroit, let me know. Maybe I'll buy you a beer. Who knows?

You forgot about the point on Vietnam that you now agree with me on.

If you really care about positive reputation that much, just remember that a great deal of it came from an anarchist who thinks he's a Marxist. I'm just saying, I don't think it's a coincidence that you got support from such an anti-Marxist poster.

And I might take you up on that. If you're near NJ/NYC or Bavaria, I'll return the favor.

[Rawthentic]

welcome to revleft, where my organization is better than yours. thanks, miles and manic expression, for proving this forum's immaturity and startling lack of principled debate and line struggle.

so you can both shut the fuck up now.

[RHIZOMES]

Because the WWP line, which the PSL seems to uphold, that the US national bourgeoisie is a higher class of threat to the freedom and safety of the proletarian class, than any other bourgeoisie, that all US allies are "pawns", (with the possible exception of Israel which is always vaguely implied to have a sinister, occult sway over Washington) that all rivals of "US imperialism", not just the more relatively benign ones such as Chavez, Quadafi, and Castro, but all of them, from Saddam Hussein to Slovadon Milosovic to the DPRK and the "revisionist" PRC to Bin Laden and Hamas to the Islamic Republic of Iran, need to be given some degree of conditional support is vile, implicitly Euro-chauvinist, and could potentially sabotage the communist movement if it's allowed to grow any larger than the miniscule ideological sect it currently is. Therefore it must be denounced, petulantly.

Fucking A. That's the sort of shit which fucked over the Iranian left during the Iranian revolution. Oh let's support the Ayotollah because he's against the US oh whoops now we're in jail.

[Martin Blank]

welcome to revleft, where my organization is better than yours. thanks, miles and manic expression, for proving this forum's immaturity and startling lack of principled debate and line struggle.

so you can both shut the fuck up now.

This from someone who can't go five paragraphs without mentioning Mike Ely and Kasama? Please! Word of advice: Don't use a toy pony as a high horse.

In fact, I'm just going to say it now before others decide to jump in: If any of you who are parts of an organization of any type want to think about getting in on what Rawthentic said, think twice. You've all defended your own organizations, just as manic and I have. You may think the extent of the debate was unnecessary, and you may be right. But it's hypocritical on your part to do what Raw did and try to mount a high horse, when you've all defended your groups against what you saw as slander.

Besides, you're too late. I've already ended my participation in the exchanges with manic, and he's also agreed to end it. We're both moving on to other things for now.

[Rawthentic]

When I do happen to mention mike ely or Kasama, its for the purpose of debate, not fucking nitpicking and *****ing like you and manic have been doing.

And of course Ill defend Kasama, and I dont condem anyone who defends their organization, but there's a difference between principled struggle and debate (on whatever topic, including organizations) and the stupidity you have shown.

Act your age, Miles.

[Agrippa]

As one of the guilty parties in turning this thread into a clusterfuck, (although it was destined for flamewar-dom, it could have at least been an intellectual flamewar about the nature of the Iranian uprising) I request it be closed.

[Martin Blank]

When I do happen to mention mike ely or Kasama, its for the purpose of debate, not fucking nitpicking and *****ing like you and manic have been doing.

I want to take this "nit-picking" issue on. This is not the first time I've heard it, and it won't be the last. From my perspective, what you call "nit-picking" is what I call making a full analysis. It's actually looking at everything, not just what fits conveniently into one's sectarian doctrine. This, I feel, is what I'm being attacked over: my unwillingness to ignore the inconvenient, or to do a half-assed job of analysis.

I see such willful blindness and sneering over looking at, and analyzing, all the facts as immature -- the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears, closing your eyes and yelling "la-la-la-la-la..." to drown out the outside world. If you're intellectually lazy -- unwilling to look at all the facts, including those that don't fit your theories, and study all sides in an argument -- then you are nothing more than a child playing at politics, and you'd do best to quit now and take up gardening or something.


And of course Ill defend Kasama, and I dont condem anyone who defends their organization, but there's a difference between principled struggle and debate (on whatever topic, including organizations) and the stupidity you have shown.

More subjective nonsense. Or, to put it another way, "stupidity" is in the eye of the beholder. I've read the arguments between Kasama and RCP people on here. Those are just as "stupid" as any other argument between two organizations.

And most of the debate between us was political -- talking about imperialism and inter-imperialist rivalry (including the development of rival imperialist cartels), factional conflicts within the exploiting and oppressing classes, the development of the world capitalist system since the 1950s, the character of petty-bourgeois left organizations (a point that several people thanked me for, BTW), etc.

And while I can be criticized for keeping the personal side of it going (mainly to prove one of the political points), I wasn't the one who started it; if it hadn't been started, it would never have come up.


Act your age, Miles.

I'd rather act like a child than think like one.

[Luís Henrique]

And this is no longer true. The EU, China, Brazil, and India are now Superpowers of their own.

Interesting concept. On what do you base the idea that Brazil or India are "superpowers"?

What is a "superpower", for starters?

Luís Henrique

[AvanteRedGarde]

I agree. Brazil and India might have significant regional and indirectly global influence, but they could hardly be compared to the U.S. or any number or imperialist powers.

[Agrippa]

All the US basically has anymore besides Hollywood and the military is a service industry and a corn industry. India has a growing mass-media infrastructure, an expanding military, a huge-ass service industry, and an abundance of yet-exploited natural resources...

Although I'd hate to presume, I'd guess that probably the reason you have a hard time imagining Brazil as a superpower is because you sympathize too much with the political projects of Chavez and Morales. No one that I've met in the American "rev left" takes Lula's Worker's Party seriously, yet at the same time they tend to ignore it. They don't want to think about Raul, Lula, Chavez, Morales, Bachalet, and the FARC (a capitalist drug cartel masquarading as a Marxist-Leninist group, one that draws a significant amount of water in the Colombian political establishment despite its [rapidly fading] guerrilla "cred") are, for the mean time, all stuck on the same boat, and together, make up a force that could possibly even rival the US. None of these guys, in the mean time, could exist anywhere except under the combined weight of the EU-Russia-PRC alliance, hence why Obama obviously doesn't take any of them seriously. Then again, Obama is a cocky, self-deluded asshole...

[Luís Henrique]

Although I'd hate to presume, I'd guess that probably the reason you have a hard time imagining Brazil as a superpower is because you sympathize too much with the political projects of Chavez and Morales.

I don't.

Luís Henrique

[PRC-UTE]

way off the mark, Luis H is a kind of Luxemburgist.

[Luís Henrique]

way off the mark, Luis H is a kind of Luxemburgist.

Yes, that's it.


I'd guess that probably the reason you have a hard time imagining Brazil as a superpower is because you sympathize too much with the political projects of Chavez and Morales.

The reasons why I "have a hard time imagining Brazil as a superpower" are the following:

1. Brazil isn't a net exporter of capital. How many Brazilian transnational companies do you know? On the contrary, a huge part of Brazilian economy and markets are dominated by foreign companies - mostly American, French, Italian, Japanese, and German companies.

2. Brazil has no nukes.

3. Brazilian Army is a joke. It wouldn't be able to defeat the Bolivian regular army in conventional battles.

4. Brazilian companies do not have control of any high technology. No chip factories in Brazil (not even of transnational companies). Biotechnology lags way behind the first world. Ditto fine chemistry or high-tech materials.

There is only one superpower at this moment, and it is the United States. Europe could be one, if, for starters, it was one. But it isn't; it is a loose confederation with no unified army (except for the extent they are unified - under American command, of course - in NATO). China and Russia haven't the economy to be a superpower. Japan doesn't have the military.

This is not to say that only the United States are an imperialist State. Nor they even control or subordinate other smaller imperialisms, or even have absolute control over non-imperialist countries, even those that are evidently their sattelites, such as Brazil, Israel, Tailand or Costa Rica.

Substituting fantasy for analysis isn't historic materialism.

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

compeltely true LH. you could have also added that Brazil has now gone into recession aas a result of the crisis int he first world, showing its dependence on global financial cycles and inability to "decuple" and present itself as an alternative.


All the US basically has anymore besides Hollywood and the military is a service industry and a corn industry


not true, it has the most productive industry in the world, it is just very specialized in areas of its "comparatize advantage", i.e. the high tech sector, accounting for 19% of GDP ($47.000 per capita). It also outsources its industries to countries like Brazil, whose bourgeoisie turn do not own the most productive businesses...

Brazil on the other hand has a GDP per capita of $10.000 - lower than Iran ($11.000), Poland ($17.000), the Czech Republic ($18.000) or even Argentina ($14.000), meaning its internal market cannot compete with the great powers. In history I don't know of one "superpower" which did not have a world-class internal market.

In other words if 19% of $47.000 makes the USA some kind of deindustrialized joke, I hate to think what Brazil's industry (28% of $10.000) is...

[Luís Henrique]

Headquarters of the 500 biggest companies in the world:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/maps/index.html

Luís Henrique

[la lucha sigue]

So, nothing happening in Iran anymore, we can all sit round on this Iranian forum and discuss whether Brazil or US is the bigger superpower! I heard that the Brazilian army was on the brink of invading Iran to get hold of their nuclear secrets :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

So, nothing happening in Iran anymore, we can all sit round on this Iranian forum and discuss whether Brazil or US is the bigger superpower! I heard that the Brazilian army was on the brink of invading Iran to get hold of their nuclear secrets :rolleyes:

So let's bring back the discussion about Brazil/India "superpowerness" to Iran, and take the correct consequences.

This voluntaristic overestimation of the possibility of third world nations to defy imperialist established powers and assert themselves as new superpowers without destroying the whole imperialist chain is the theoretic basis for the nationalist support for reactionary regimes such as Ahmadinejad's: as their "anti-imperialis" rhetoric is taken as a reflex of reality, they can be taken in serious as enemies of imperialism. In this, the anarchist/left communist position on Ahmadinejad's dictatorship is no different from the Stalinist characterisation. In fact, Stalinists are slightly more consequent here: if in fact third world nations could overtake first world powers and establish themselves as the new dominant countries, capitalism would still have a progressive role. Which would justify supporting regimes as Chavez's and also regimes as Ahmadinejad's.

But reality is much more cruel: not only Iran or Venezuela, but even Brasil, India, Russia, or China, are firmly tied, not only to the imperialist chain, but to their subordinate roles in such hierarchy. And the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad or Chávez isn't the rhetoric of triumph, but that of despair: at best an attempt to force their national bourgeoisies to play a role third world bourgeoisies are not willing to play, and as such a road to defeat (Chávez); at worst merely an ideological mask for sheer reactionary oppression against the proletariat and other popular classes (Ahmadinejad).

That's how the hermetic discussion about Brazil being a "superpower" relates to Iran, to Ahmadinejad, to the repressive clerical dictatorship in Iran, and to the popular movement against it.

Luís Henrique

[Led Zeppelin]

So, nothing happening in Iran anymore, we can all sit round on this Iranian forum and discuss whether Brazil or US is the bigger superpower! I heard that the Brazilian army was on the brink of invading Iran to get hold of their nuclear secrets :rolleyes:

Actually that's not true. Yesterday thousands went out on the streets again defying a ban on protests, in a day of action that was planned ahead of time (in commemoration of the 1999 student uprising against the "reformist" Khatami).

Here's more info on that: Link (http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-footages18-tir9july.html)

It's not surprising that Revleft isn't keeping up to date with the events though (strangely coinciding with the time the mainstream media stopped reporting it as much as it was before).

You should check sites like the one I linked above if you want to stay updated. :)

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Does this mean to say the Ahmadinejad is good in a relative sense?
Didnt he torture people and wasnt he extremely oppressive to his own people?
I ask because I dont know whether he was like that or not.

He's a figurehead. How would Mousavi in charge change the way the Shia regime works? Sure he and the greens are "reformists" but that just means he wants to take control away from the Ayatollah for himself and increase privatization/economic westernization.

Turning Iran into a Saudi Arabia is not the way to go. I'd prefer Iran myself.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

It's not surprising that Revleft isn't keeping up to date with the events though (strangely coinciding with the time the mainstream media stopped reporting it as much as it was before).

Strangely? I'm assuming that was sarcastic because it's obvious that's the only reason anyone cared about it in the first place. Nice to see all the leftists falling for simple western PR because an unstable Iran benefits the western capitalist powers.

I bet everyone here voted for that great leftist Obama too...

[fredbergen]

Could some PSL supporter please explain to me what kind of revolution the 1979 Iranian "revolution" was?

Certainly not a workers revolution, since the mullahs massacred the left and decimated the workers movement.

Certainly not an "anti-imperialist revolution" since Iran under the Mullahs served U.S. imperialism in the Afghan war in the 1980s, supplied arms to the Contras on behalf of the CIA, and is cooperating with U.S. imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

So what kind of "revolution" was this "revolution"?

I would conclude that to the PSL, a "revolution" is whenever Pseudo-Socialist Liberals have an opportunity to tail after some bourgeois figure or regime.

An article in Liberation (13 March 2009) puts it diplomatically:


The Iranian revolution was not led by the most progressive forces. The left and the secular nationalist forces had been crushed by the U.S. client regime, leaving a grouping of Islamic nationalists with socially reactionary views to take the leadership of the revolution.

("Socially reactionary views" must be the new PC term for stoning women to death for un-Islamic behavior and slaughtering tens of thousands in a reactionary war! Next bombshell from the PSL: "Adolf Hitler was a rather unpleasant man.")

But the Left in Iran had not been crushed by the Shah, despite his best efforts!

Who was leading the general strikes that paralyzed the country in 1978-79? Who was forming workers councils? No, the left was destroyed after the "revolution" because like the PSL, it betrayed the workers and oppressed by supporting the capitalist mullahs in the name of some kind of phony "anti-imperialism"!

For workers revolution in Iran! Down with all wings of the Mullah regime! (http://www.internationalist.org/iranmassprotests0906.html)

[Led Zeppelin]

Strangely? I'm assuming that was sarcastic because it's obvious that's the only reason anyone cared about it in the first place.

No, I was being sarcastic, but not in the way you think.

I was also referring to people of your ilk, the ones who didn't give a shit about what happened in Iran until the media started talking about it, after which you rushed to the defense of the capitalist dictatorial regime there because when the mainstream media says one thing you need to support the opposite.


I bet everyone here voted for that great leftist Obama too...

I don't know, did you?

Rhetoric from bourgeois politicians seems to have a great effect on you, given your support for Ahmadinejad, so the law of consistency states that you voted for Obama and support him for all the great stuff he promised and still promises to do (he was in favor of regulations and even semi-nationalized some companies! Working-class hero!).

But people like you are never consistent, since you lack any principles to keep your metaphorical backbone straight, like a political rubber chicken:

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/rubber_chicken.jpg

[Andy Bowden]

The problem I have with the idea whats going on in Iran is a "colour revolution" is that Mousavi isn't exactly a colour candidate. He's a leading apparachik in the Islamic regime who hasn't shown any desire to dismantle the nuclear programme and has got his hands dirty with massacres the state carried out in the 80's.

I don't see any evidence that Iran under his leadership would do anything other than continue developing as a regional power that would be in conflict with Israel, the US and the "moderate" Arab states.

[Sam_b]

I agree Andy, but the whole point is that these demonstrations are not solely focusing around Mousavi - they have developed and expanded from that original base and if anything acted as a catalyst for wider action as everything was brought to a head. When Iranian people are taking to the streets and shouting 'death to the dictator'. When people are defying the ayatollah its obviously much more than disputing an election. So yeah I think this is much more than just a colour revolution.

A 26 year old worker said: “Many of the protesters do not have much affinity with [reformist leader] Mousavi and they are frustrated by the lack of alternative to both Mousavi and Ahmadinejad.”

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18289

[fredbergen]

Another question, now for the resident Cliffites, Grantites, and Taffeeites:

What kind of "reformist leader" is Mousavi? What makes him "reformist"?

Is he opposed to mullah rule? No.

Is he for any expansion of workers rights? No.

Is he responsible to any workers party or union? No.

I can only conclude that to these opportunists, the term "reformist" is a meaningless fig-leaf that they apply to whatever bourgeois figure they are currently chasing.

By the way, the Cliffites, Grantites and Taffeeites all supported the reactionary Islamists in 1979, too. Only the Trotskyists of the then-revolutionary Spartacist League said "Down with the Shah, Don't Bow to Khomenei!" (http://www.internationalist.org/iranandleft7904.htm)

[Led Zeppelin]

Another question, now for the resident Cliffites, Grantites, and Taffeeites:

All of them oppose Mousavi though and call for independent workers' action, they don't hold any illusions about Mousavi.

Check out the articles on the marxist.com site for the "Grantist" position, the articles from the UK SWP for the "Cliffist" position and the articles on socialistworld.net for the "Taffeeist" position.

It is true though that most Trotskyists had a shitty position on the Iran question during the 1979 revolution (there was even an internal Trotskyist organization that supported the Mullahs, like practically all "Marxist-Leninists" did).

[Yehuda Stern]

All of them oppose Mousavi though and call for independent workers' action, they don't hold any illusions about Mousavi.

This is somewhat correct although not completely. The IMT in their "open letter" to Mousavi were sowing illusions that some reformist, if not Mousavi himself, could lead the Iranian people against the despotic regime.

[RedScare]

I think PSL's stance on Iran is wrong, but I see how they arrived at that conclusion, and I'm not going to bother attacking them over it, because neither they, nor any of us, have any bearing on what goes on inside Iran, so their stance is not very important.

[Revy]

All the US basically has anymore besides Hollywood and the military is a service industry and a corn industry. India has a growing mass-media infrastructure, an expanding military, a huge-ass service industry, and an abundance of yet-exploited natural resources...

Although I'd hate to presume, I'd guess that probably the reason you have a hard time imagining Brazil as a superpower is because you sympathize too much with the political projects of Chavez and Morales. No one that I've met in the American "rev left" takes Lula's Worker's Party seriously, yet at the same time they tend to ignore it. They don't want to think about Raul, Lula, Chavez, Morales, Bachalet, and the FARC (a capitalist drug cartel masquarading as a Marxist-Leninist group, one that draws a significant amount of water in the Colombian political establishment despite its [rapidly fading] guerrilla "cred") are, for the mean time, all stuck on the same boat, and together, make up a force that could possibly even rival the US. None of these guys, in the mean time, could exist anywhere except under the combined weight of the EU-Russia-PRC alliance, hence why Obama obviously doesn't take any of them seriously. Then again, Obama is a cocky, self-deluded asshole...

Are you thinking of the South American Union?

[Agrippa]

What is a "superpower", for starters

An imperialist power that's better than all the others, I guess. I dunno, it's more of a colloquial than scientific term. In some ways I think the era of "superpowers" may be coming to an end.


Are you thinking of the South American Union?

Yes, it's naive to believe such an infrastructure couldn't develop into an independent imperialist superpower just because it's geographically located in the "global south". Same goes for the African Union.


Yes, that's it.

My apologies for assuming.


1. Brazil isn't a net exporter of capital. How many Brazilian transnational companies do you know? On the contrary, a huge part of Brazilian economy and markets are dominated by foreign companies - mostly American, French, Italian, Japanese, and German companies.

You have me there, but such state-of-events are never set in stone.


2. Brazil has no nukes.

Neither does Germany or Japan but they have the capacity to develop hundreds of nukes very quickly.


3. Brazilian Army is a joke. It wouldn't be able to defeat the Bolivian regular army in conventional battles.

The Japanese Army is also a joke because Japan doesn't need any army that isn't a joke, at least right now. (Of course, that's becoming less and less true, and the Japanese army is getting built up more and more, just like the Brazilian, Venezuelan, etc. armies)


4. Brazilian companies do not have control of any high technology. No chip factories in Brazil (not even of transnational companies). Biotechnology lags way behind the first world. Ditto fine chemistry or high-tech materials.

Another good point. But again, what's true today won't always be true tomorrow.


There is only one superpower at this moment, and it is the United States. Europe could be one, if, for starters, it was one. But it isn't; it is a loose confederation with no unified army

the EU doesn't necessarily need a "unified army". And every point you make in regards to discordance among factions of the EU could also be said of the US, given many major events in US history.


(except for the extent they are unified - under American command, of course - in NATO).

Is NATO still a source of "American command"?


Substituting fantasy for analysis isn't historic materialism.

The idea that the current República Federativa do Brasil has as much military and economic power as the current US is a fantasy. What's also a fantasy is the notion that such an idea was ever proposed by myself.

[Luís Henrique]

An imperialist power that's better than all the others, I guess. I dunno, it's more of a colloquial than scientific term. In some ways I think the era of "superpowers" may be coming to an end.

In which case it would be wiser not to assume that this or that country is becoming a superpower, wouldn't it?


My apologies for assuming.

Nevermind.


You have me there, but such state-of-events are never set in stone.

No, it is not set in stone. But it is still the state of events, and it is not withering away. What are the conditions for such state of events to disappear? Are those conditions being fulfilled?


Neither does Germany or Japan but they have the capacity to develop hundreds of nukes very quickly.

Technical and economic capacity, without doubt. Political capacity? I'm not so sure. Brazil, on the other hand, has neither the technical nor the political capacity.


The Japanese Army is also a joke because Japan doesn't need any army that isn't a joke, at least right now. (Of course, that's becoming less and less true, and the Japanese army is getting built up more and more, just like the Brazilian, Venezuelan, etc. armies)

And Japan does not need an army that isn't a joke because it is not seriously poised to challenge American hegemony. Or how would they become hegemonic without breaking American hegemony? And how would they break the American hegemony if they aren't in a position to repeal armed reimposition of said dominance?


Another good point. But again, what's true today won't always be true tomorrow.


the EU doesn't necessarily need a "unified army". And every point you make in regards to discordance among factions of the EU could also be said of the US, given many major events in US history.

The United States are a State in any sence of the word. The EU are not. And the reason they don't need a unified army is the same Japan doesn't need a serious army: they are not poised to actually challenge American hegemony.


Is NATO still a source of "American command"?

What else?


The idea that the current República Federativa do Brasil has as much military and economic power as the current US is a fantasy. What's also a fantasy is the notion that such an idea was ever proposed by myself.

Maybe you didn't intend to propose that idea. But you sure gave that impression:


And this is no longer true. The EU, China, Brazil, and India are now Superpowers of their own.

And anyway, even if you never proposed the idea that Brazil has as much military and economic power as the US today, you certainly proposed the idea that Brazil (and China, and India, and the European Union) are superpowers. Which is already a fantasy.

Luís Henrique

[Agrippa]

In which case it would be wiser not to assume that this or that country is becoming a superpower, wouldn't it?

No, because as the global capitalist order becomes less stable, I believe military, geographic, political, economic, and technological hegemonies will become smaller scale. Thus, I believe that the Latin American bloc, while still a second dog to the Peking-Moscow axis, is on its way to becoming one of what will be the new era of capitalist global order's closest resemblance to Cold War "superpowers".


But it is still the state of events, and it is not withering away.

See, I disagree. American hegemony is definitely withering away.


Technical and economic capacity, without doubt. Political capacity?

What is political capacity beyond technical and economic capacity?


I'm not so sure. Brazil, on the other hand, has neither the technical nor the political capacity.

There's no reason to believe the Brazilian bourgeoisie wants to keep it this way, and given their material resources, it doesn't have to be this way.


And Japan does not need an army that isn't a joke because it is not seriously poised to challenge American hegemony.

At this point in time.


The United States are a State in any sence of the word. The EU are not.

The United States


has a massive African diaspora population, almost all descended from chattel slaves who don't culturally identify with the ethnic minority in any real way, a diaspora population that has launched violent insurrectionary campaigns throughout the history of the US, causing a great deal of political instability in the process
has hundreds of living indigenous ethnic groups, of which everything above can also be said
stole almost half of its geographic territory from the bourgeois Mexican state, against the wishes of the indigenous/mestizo population, who, as a consequence, also resent the ethnic majority culture and the current political order and wish to break away
struggles to control colonial territories as far off as Hawaii and Puerto Rico
had a massively bloody Civil War over the attempted secession of the Southern aristocracy
has a large population of politically and economically disenfranchised Scots-Irish workers that historically identify with that secession
has a governor of Alaska who (although recently resigned) was in bed with the Alaska secessionist party, a major 3rd party in Alaska
has a governor of Texas who just recently made remarks implying that threats of Texan secession would not be unreasonable
is a place where even Social Democrats in Vermont are very seriously considering seceding

So how is the EU any different? Yes, the US has a federal government, but Europe has Europol.


And the reason they don't need a unified army is the same Japan doesn't need a serious army

Their army isn't unified but it's definitely serious, more-so than the Japanese, although the Japanese are working on it.


What else?

The US does not always call the shots when NATO makes decisions. This may have been true during the Cold War, but that's over.


much military and economic power as the US today, you certainly proposed the idea that Brazil (and China, and India, and the European Union) are superpowers. Which is already a fantasy.

It's a fantasy to suggest that the US still has some unique economic, military, political, cultural, and technological supremacy when it clearly doesn't. For the US to be the only superpower, in my mind, it would have to be able to destroy Brazil, China, India, and the EU in one fell swoop. The fact that any one of these political entities could cause some serious permanent damage to the US (if you take Brazil's allies into account) in a full-blown war proves that the US is not the only superpower.

[Zurdito]

This is somewhat correct although not completely. The IMT in their "open letter" to Mousavi were sowing illusions that some reformist, if not Mousavi himself, could lead the Iranian people against the despotic regime.

Seeing as they practiced entry in the PPP in Pakistan, it surprises me they have restricted themselves only to open letters.:rolleyes:

[h9socialist]

I don't claim any great knowledge of Iran, but I agree with the Comrade who seemed bewildered by the forum on Iran melting down into a discussion of what constitutes a superpower. My hat is off to whoever can fully resolve that question -- but the thread had something to do with a "Party for Socialism and Liberation. So far, this discussion makes me think that the chances are better for socialism in the US than in the Middle East and Iran. Like the US, any suggestion of a powerful Left in Iran ranks as fraudulent, and the most realistic force for progress resides with a liberal bourgeoisie and some die hard labor leaders. Theocracies, as a rule, tend to be fascist anyway. They leave little air for socialism to breathe. This sounds like the sort of situation that makes an old Marxian observation seem at least a bit relevant -- (paraphrase:) Iran suffers as much from the lack of capitalism development as it does from its capitalist development to date. Right now, I suspect that the Americas are far more fertile ground for socialist progress.

[h9socialist]

I hate to be a pessimist, but we're a month past the elections and their initial impact, and frankly this rebellion seems to be losing steam rapidly. I hope I'm wrong, but unless the embers are stoked again, and a bit of petrol added to the flames of discontent, I imagine this will fade into history.