00s Scorecard

[Jimmie Higgins]

As much as I don't like to present politics as some sort of team-sport, I do like to pat the left on our collective back in regards to when we do something correctly. So here's the past decade's political scorecard as I see it:

Iraq: We were right, Bush and Blair's rationals were utter bullshit. The war was not over quickly with Iraqis welcoming the occupiers.

Afghanistan: We were right, imperialist occupation does not liberate people. The country is still run by corrupt warlords, women's rights are still restricted.

The TARP bailout: We were right, it did not do anything to help workers, it was a giveaway to the banks. It didn't even do much to help the capitalist economy.

Obama: We were right, I wish I could track down all the liberals who said, "Obama's different" and then rub their nose in it (not really - I wish they would acknowledge that we were correct and stop supporting liberals and the Democrats). In fact, I think I told one liberal that if I was right about Obama then they would have to become a socialist.

Neoliberalism: We were right, the market has not led to prosperity across the board - quite the opposite.

Social Security would do better on the stock market: I think the left was not the only group to realize that this was a stupid and terrible plan.

Upsurge in movements: We were wrong. Well while some amazing work was done by the left this decade and many other activists and workers radicalizing for the first time (LGBT rights, Immigrant rights, and so on) the movements failed to become self-sustaining and generalized.

I apologize that this is very US-centric, but I hope other comrades add their own examples of what the Left got right and wrong IN GENERAL this decade. And what about the right? What do right-wingers or other people feel the right or left got wrong or right?

[Drace]

There has been upsurge in movements!
How bout all the protests in Greece, Ireland, Iran, Napal?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

There has been upsurge in movements!
How bout all the protests in Greece, Ireland, Iran, Napal?
I can't speak for Nepal. Iran does seem to be developing a proper opposition movement. But the protests in Ireland and, AFAIK, Greece are not part of any larger movement, they are just people being pissed off.

[Antiks72]

The entire decade of from 1999 - 2009 saw ZERO economic growth.

[IcarusAngel]

Good posts. Leftists (i.e., us) should pat themselves on the back now and again too, to remind themselves that they're doing good work by at least attempting to stop laissez-faire capitalism, which has devastated the third world. Leftists shouldn't be afraid to believe that they are doing good work by opposing free-markets and capitalism.

Remeber, that the various leftist theories offer the only alternative to capitalism; of course liberal theories are not 'alternatives' to capitalism but merely try and make capitalism more efficient.

Anticapitalists should note that workers ought to take back what's theirs . If they don't do this, they get into debates about capitalism that have more to do with making capitalism efficient than actually overthrowing it (like the Misean debates in OI).

[IcarusAngel]

The entire decade of from 1999 - 2009 saw ZERO economic growth.

That's bad, but what's worse is that there are people in this world who simply cannot live, who can't find meaningful work, who can't find work at all even though they want to, and who don't even have clean food clothes. This happens even during "prosperous" economic times, such as during Clinton's economic boom and the turn around of the depression by Roosevelt's reforms.

During Clinton's economic boom, wages for many workers actually stagnated or even got worse. Millions of poor people were forgotten. He also passed harsh crime legislation that helped put more people in prison.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There has been upsurge in movements!
How bout all the protests in Greece, Ireland, Iran, Napal?True, I don't mean to denegrate the positive things that have happened, but on the whole I think that the decade was a bit up and down. We began the decade with the the pre-existing anti-globalization movements and the Latin American movements against neoliberalism and on the whole most of these movements never generalized into a clear working class opposition or revolutionary movement. Major upheavals in France, Greece, Iran, Egypt, and in the US around immigrant rights were very important and significant, but other than in Greece they did not become a larger sustained movement. It's too early to tell for Iran, but it seems like the protest movement hasn't developed its own clear politics yet.

On the whole, activity is up more since about the mid-90s, but I don't think the past decade will be seen as any sort of "breakthrough" moment for the left. I do think that the pace of these upheavals will increase in pace, urgency, and size due to the ongoing capitalist crisis, and so I hope that the new decade does see the kind of breakthrough we need.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, lets now look at things from the other side:



Iraq: We were right, Bush and Blair's rationals were utter bullshit. The war was not over quickly with Iraqis welcoming the occupiers. Who cares about WMDs? The real reason for the war was to get a psycho dictator who had international aspirations out of power and to get the oil flowing properly. The US took down the dictator without much trouble--the problem with America's plan is that they also tried to make Iraq look like an American capitalist/democratic suburb--on that little nicety America failed. Iraqis much rather spend their waking moments bombing the hell out of each others families at weddings and markets arguing over who the rightful successor of the Prophet was in the 8th century. So be it--as long as they aren't any threat to oil and the rest of the world. The US will pull out but leave a huge base there to insure "stability" in the reagon.



Afghanistan: We were right, imperialist occupation does not liberate people. The country is still run by corrupt warlords, women's rights are still restricted. Liberation would have been a nice note--but the Taliban--another group with international aspirations was contained. The US will give them another couple of good whacks and then withdraw.


The TARP bailout: We were right, it did not do anything to help workers, it was a giveaway to the banks. It didn't even do much to help the capitalist economy. The TARP bailout was never ment to give anything to the workers. It was put into place to stabilize the world credit and lending markets--which it did. That's it. The Dow is up over 10,000 again and the markets are loosening up little by little. The unemployment rate has doubled--but that should come down after a while, too. The bailout did what it was meant to do.


Obama: We were right, I wish I could track down all the liberals who said, "Obama's different" and then rub their nose in it (not really - I wish they would acknowledge that we were correct and stop supporting liberals and the Democrats). In fact, I think I told one liberal that if I was right about Obama then they would have to become a socialist. George Bush once said when he was in office that it didn't matter who was President--when it came to international affaires anyone elected to the job of President would do the same things as he did--he was right.


Neoliberalism: We were right, the market has not led to prosperity across the board - quite the opposite. I agree there.


Social Security would do better on the stock market: I think the left was not the only group to realize that this was a stupid and terrible plan. The market is doing pretty well again--it does have its ups and downs. And even better--the Blue Chips are doing just fine.


Upsurge in movements: We were wrong. Well while some amazing work was done by the left this decade and many other activists and workers radicalizing for the first time (LGBT rights, Immigrant rights, and so on) the movements failed to become self-sustaining and generalized.

The Communists got Nepal the Capitalists got China. I'd say that was a fair trade. ;)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Who cares about WMDs? The real reason for the war was to get a psycho dictator who had international aspirations out of power and to get the oil flowing properly. The US took down the dictator without much trouble--the problem with America's plan is that they also tried to make Iraq look like an American capitalist/democratic suburb--on that little nicety America failed. Iraqis much rather spend their waking moments bombing the hell out of each others families at weddings and markets arguing over who the rightful successor of the Prophet was in the 8th century. So be it--as long as they aren't any threat to oil and the rest of the world. The US will pull out but leave a huge base there to insure "stability" in the reagon.
I wouldn't have expected such racist sentiment from you TomK. :(

[Bud Struggle]

I wouldn't have expected such racist sentiment from you TomK. :(

IT'S NOT ME.

I was explaining how thing are playing out for those in power.

As I said "it's a look from the other side."

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, lets now look at things from the other side:

Who cares about WMDs? The real reason for the war was to get a psycho dictator who had international aspirations out of power and to get the oil flowing properly. The US took down the dictator without much trouble

Well, I don't think this is correct even from how our rulers looked at it. Iraq was the "low-hanging fruit" according to the Pentagon and a "new pearl harbor" in regards to the potential to remake the map for the US according to Condi Rice.

WMDs, "civilizing" and so on are just cover - even Iraq's oil is just a nice bonus. It should be clear with the US Surrounding (and threatening) Iran, occupying Afghanistan, allied and giving arms to Pakistan, occupying Iraq, bombing Syria, and training troops in Yemen for over a year... that the US wants to remake the map and gain a stronger hold over the region. I think in their minds they are doing it to ensure US power for the foreseeable future.


--the problem with America's plan is that they also tried to make Iraq look like an American capitalist/democratic suburb--on that little nicety America failed. Iraqis much rather spend their waking moments bombing the hell out of each others families at weddings and markets arguing over who the rightful successor of the Prophet was in the 8th century. So be it--as long as they aren't any threat to oil and the rest of the world. The US will pull out but leave a huge base there to insure "stability" in the reagon.:rolleyes: Ok, this is ill-informed and racist to an almost unbelievable level. First, Iraq has been a modern country for quite a while - it was also a country without much ethnic/religious factional strife. It was also a country with its own political traditions like anywhere else. These were destroyed by Saddam with the US's blessings - then they cut out the middleman.

Religious strife is not the cause for internal fighting in Iraq - political strife is and the US has been playing each part against the other. While this certainty has a divide and rule aspect, I think the US stumbled into this as the only way to keep order without empowering Iran... now they are stuck between the majority group in the population which support Iran and the privileged Sunni group that had more power under Saddam but is hated for that and would need to terrorize the population in order to rule again. The US while supporting the pro-Iran Iraqi government has also been helping the Awakening Councils which are basically armed factional militias that have effectively been "ethnically cleansing" towns through terror which has forced groups to segregate.

If factional problems were really inherent to Iraq - why would there need to be populations moving to all Sunni or all Shiite neighborhoods?


Liberation would have been a nice note--but the Taliban--another group with international aspirations was contained. The US will give them another couple of good whacks and then withdraw. We can reopen this thread in a year and (barring the forced withdrawal of US troops by forces in Afghanistan) US troops will remain regardless of the existence or nonexistence of the Taliban. The US was not interested in the Taliban when the US was supporting it, they are not interested in it now - they are interested in having a strategic crossroads and controlling the region... out of the "coalition of the willing" the US now has military access within a quick strike of Russia, Iran, and anywhere in the former eastern block - and area that was once closed to them. Russia knows this and has been scrambling to reassert itself in the region... this almost led to a war between the US and Russia over Georgia.


George Bush once said when he was in office that it didn't matter who was President--when it came to international affaires anyone elected to the job of President would do the same things as he did--he was right.Yes, we agree. I'd love to find that quote actually.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, I don't think this is correct even from how our rulers looked at it. Iraq was the "low-hanging fruit" according to the Pentagon and a "new pearl harbor" in regards to the potential to remake the map for the US according to Condi Rice. Of course, but these are remarks made after the war began.


WMDs, "civilizing" and so on are just cover - even Iraq's oil is just a nice bonus. It should be clear with the US Surrounding (and threatening) Iran, occupying Afghanistan, allied and giving arms to Pakistan, occupying Iraq, bombing Syria, and training troops in Yemen for over a year... that the US wants to remake the map and gain a stronger hold over the region. I think in their minds they are doing it to ensure US power for the foreseeable future. I have no doubt that America wants to control the reagon--and it looks like they will for the forseeable future no matter how things go in Iraq on the ground--America can and will always step in if things start to go down hill. But as long as Iraq doesn't cause any international problems I think America will let them be as they are.


:rolleyes: Ok, this is ill-informed and racist to an almost unbelievable level. First, Iraq has been a modern country for quite a while - it was also a country without much ethnic/religious factional strife. It was also a country with its own political traditions like anywhere else. These were destroyed by Saddam with the US's blessings - then they cut out the middleman.

Religious strife is not the cause for internal fighting in Iraq - political strife is and the US has been playing each part against the other. While this certainty has a divide and rule aspect, I think the US stumbled into this as the only way to keep order without empowering Iran... now they are stuck between the majority group in the population which support Iran and the privileged Sunni group that had more power under Saddam but is hated for that and would need to terrorize the population in order to rule again. The US while supporting the pro-Iran Iraqi government has also been helping the Awakening Councils which are basically armed factional militias that have effectively been "ethnically cleansing" towns through terror which has forced groups to segregate.

If factional problems were really inherent to Iraq - why would there need to be populations moving to all Sunni or all Shiite neighborhoods? The big problem with Communist ideology is that it only allows for one motovation for any human action and thats class struggle. When people are motivated by anything else, like Religion themotovation becomes unintelligible as the sectarian fighting in Iraq illustrates. People in Iraq have widely divergent views of Islam and it is the cause for vast ammounts of tension. There are of course economic interests involved as well as age old feuds and arguments. It's not that the people in Iraq aren't logical, (as most people in the world) they just follow an internal logic that is not in accordance with Marxist ideology. Iraq never was a modern society. It was a hobbled together country by the British and the French after WWI and was held together by a brutal dictator who insisted on making the country secular when clearly the people of the country wanted it otherwise.



We can reopen this thread in a year and (barring the forced withdrawal of US troops by forces in Afghanistan) US troops will remain regardless of the existence or nonexistence of the Taliban. The US was not interested in the Taliban when the US was supporting it, they are not interested in it now - they are interested in having a strategic crossroads and controlling the region... out of the "coalition of the willing" the US now has military access within a quick strike of Russia, Iran, and anywhere in the former eastern block - and area that was once closed to them. Russia knows this and has been scrambling to reassert itself in the region... this almost led to a war between the US and Russia over Georgia. Well, like in Iraq I think the troops will remain in some bases for a good long time--I don't think they will be patroling the countryside as they do now. But no matter, America will definitely control both countries--they just won't engage in nationbuilding as they do now. But there definitely was and is a concern about the Taliban and other Islamic millitants--they create a huge problem to American security at home and abroad--for that matter they are creating instability around the world. And for religious reasons. The US government couldn't do anything else but to conquer Afghanistan (or some place similar) after the WTC disaster--the American people couldn't just get bombed and let it go at that. Somebody had to pay--and Afghanistan as a seat of millitant Islamic power was a good a place as any. I really don't think America is that interested in being in striking distance or Russia these days--both countries are generally friendly to each other and the days of great nation wars are over. Besides the US proved that it really doesn't need huge land bases to conquer whatever they want in the First Gulf War.


Yes, we agree. I'd love to find that quote actually. Oddly enough it quote comes from Glen Beck on his show. Beck said that Bush made the comment in an interview that Beck had with the President. :cool: