Left or Ultra-Left defenses of Imperialism.

[Palingenisis]

Hi comrades,

I was hoping some people here could recommend any texts either supporting Imperialism or attacking anti-Imperialism from a Left wing or Anarchist point of view?

Thanks.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Hi comrades,

I was hoping some people here could recommend any texts either supporting Imperialism or attacking attacking anti-Imperialism from a Left wing or Anarchist point of view?

Thanks.

Can I ask exactly why first?

[Palingenisis]

Can I ask exactly why first?

Various reasons.

Mainly because of discussions have been having with two people on this issue. Also I read something very interesting recently that turned out to be written by the so-called Anti-German current and I wanted to see if their more extreme/eccentric views have any real roots in wider socialist history.

[RadioRaheem84]

You aren't going to find any. If you want books written by self proclaimed "leftists" that support imperialism, read the books;

Anti-Totalitarianism: The "Left Wing" Case for Neo-Conservatism by Oliver Kamm.

Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Case for War in Iraq edited by Thomas Cushman

A Long Short War by Christopher Hitchens

Subscribe to the monthly journal called Democratiya. It's a "left-liberal" screed written by pro-war supporters of the Iraq War, Israel, and the War on Terror.

Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman

This should keep you busy for months as you soak up all the useless pro-imperialist crap from the pro-war "left".

And then when you're done with that pretentious stage you can move over to the good stuff. I encourage you to read Johan Hari's book review of Nick Cohen's abysmal book, What's Left.

http://www.johannhari.com/2007/07/20/-what-s-left-by-nick-cohen

Hopefully, you're not a troll and you genuinely want to learn. At least you will be able to tell people that Revleft doesn't scare people away, not even trolls, but really want to help people grow in knowledge.

Peace.

[Palingenisis]

Thanks but I was more looking for stuff from an actual revolutionary as opposed to liberal/social-democratic viewpoint.

Didnt Rosa Luxembourg consider Western Imperialism/Colonialism a good thing and considered support for revolutionary nationalists in the colonies reactionary?

Also there was a group called BICO in Britian and Ireland in the 1970s which argued similar things...And the Anti-Germans today.

Can anybody recommend me texts along those lines?

[Misanthrope]

Imperialism is a product of capitalism. Capitalists benefit from imperialism. Leftists do not support capitalism..

[RadioRaheem84]

Probably the closest thing I could think of, and this is taken out of context all the time, especially by the pro war "left"; Karl Marx's support of the Union Army during the American Civil War.

Plenty of socialists supported WWI but later became fascists.

[Zanthorus]

You aren't going to find any because there aren't (Not that I'm aware of anyway. I could be dead wrong on this...). Not supporting "national liberation" movements does not equate to a defence of imperialism. It just means that as socialists we recognise that the workers have no country and that support for "revolutionary nationalists" entails support for the national bourgeoisie.

The trick to ending imperialism is overthrowing capitalism.

[Palingenisis]

You aren't going to find any because there aren't (Not that I'm aware of anyway. I could be dead wrong on this...). Not supporting "national liberation" movements does not equate to a defence of imperialism. It just means that as socialists we recognise that the workers have no country and that support for "revolutionary nationalists" entails support for the national bourgeoisie.

The trick to ending imperialism is overthrowing capitalism.

I didnt mean to imply that it did. Obviously pro-Imperialism and opposition to anti-Imperialism are not necessarily the same thing.

However BICO in the 70s and 80s and the Anti-German bought defended Imperialism as progressive from a left wing point of view.

[Zanthorus]

I didnt mean to imply that it did. Obviously pro-Imperialism and opposition to anti-Imperialism are not necessarily the same thing.

Your mention of "ultra-lefts" and anarchists was what made me infer that conclusion. Thanks for clarifying though :)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The AWL are regularly accused of being social-imperialist. This mental article is probably as close to a left defence of imperialism as you're likely to find: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/07/28/discussion-article-what-if-israel-bombs-iran

[Die Neue Zeit]

Plenty of socialists supported WWI but later became fascists.

Those particular "socialists" who became fascists were too attracted to left syndicalism.

In response to the OP, do a RevLeft search on "revolutionary defencism," which BTW has nothing to do with imperialist states attacking lesser countries.

[Alf]

Palingenesis: where on earth did you get this idea:

"Didnt Rosa Luxembourg consider Western Imperialism/Colonialism a good thing and considered support for revolutionary nationalists in the colonies reactionary"

Rosa did come to consider that supporting national struggles was no longer valid in the period opened up by the first world war - she saw, quite correctly in my view, that henceforward all national conflicts could only become proxy wars between imperialist powers. But this also meant that she considered all capitalist states imperialist and reactionary, not that 'western imperialism/colonialism was a good thing'....

[Red Commissar]

Probably the closest thing I could think of, and this is taken out of context all the time, especially by the pro war "left"; Karl Marx's support of the Union Army during the American Civil War.

Plenty of socialists supported WWI but later became fascists.

Indeed, I recall even a more modern situation with the collapse of the American left in the 1970s. Some followers of Max Schactman went to become some of the strongest proponents of neo-conservatism, which argues for intervention. Sugar-coated imperialism if you will.

For the OP, RadioRaheem posted some good things there. Pay particular attention to Christopher Hitchens.

[black magick hustla]

There are a lot of leftists who defended and still defend "socialist" realpolitik, which amounts to nothing but a defense of imperialism.

[black magick hustla]

I agree, but many of us also think that attacking anti-colonial, anti-imperialist Third World revolts also amounts to a defense of western imperialism. What do you think about that?
If you can find a single leaflet from a left communist defending western imperialism i will give you a cookie

[RadioRaheem84]

Indeed, I recall even a more modern situation with the collapse of the American left in the 1970s. Some followers of Max Schactman went to become some of the strongest proponents of neo-conservatism, which argues for intervention. Sugar-coated imperialism if you will.

For the OP, RadioRaheem posted some good things there. Pay particular attention to Christopher Hitchens.


I talked to a leader of the Social Democrats USA about a month ago and he told me that the now defunct party is trying to rebuild itself after the Schactmanites left. Apparently, they were a FBI front monitoring the left. They took control of the party in the late 70s and they left shortly after the Iraq War. They also took everything the Party had with them, raided the safe and took the membership list. So, the party functioned as a front to gather information about the left for the Feds. It was a front group. I think the leader worked for Freedom House. Weird.

The Pro War left are imperialists plain and simple.

[RadioRaheem84]

Those particular "socialists" who became fascists were too attracted to left syndicalism.

Technically, yes. They were syndicalists who became nationalists after WWII. They split the syndicalist camp between nationalist and anarchist lines. The National Syndicalists became fascists.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

If I'm not wrong, I believe you also attack the Democratic Party. Many Democrats would believe that amounts to a defence of Republicanism.

[The Douche]

I talked to a leader of the Social Democrats USA about a month ago and he told me that the now defunct party is trying to rebuild itself after the Schactmanites left. Apparently, they were a FBI front monitoring the left. They took control of the party in the late 70s and they left shortly after the Iraq War. They also took everything the Party had with them, raided the safe and took the membership list. So, the party functioned as a front to gather information about the left for the Feds. It was a front group. I think the leader worked for Freedom House. Weird.

The Pro War left are imperialists plain and simple.

He said sd-usa was a front for the FBI?

[RadioRaheem84]

He said sd-usa was a front for the FBI?

Pretty much. He said there were a lot of guys in there that were working for the Feds. Most of them were ultra-Schactmanites getting fed money to spy on leftists. They left and took the safe with them, leaving the party broke. A couple of guys rekindled the party last year and are working out of a small office in central PA. I feed bad for them but their party turned staunchly pro-government, pro-war and anti-communist by the 80s. They had no qualms about reporting anti-war individuals and organizations. The guy on the phone told me that they were pushed by the ultra-Schactmanites to support war and be more pro-American.

From the conversation I gathered that the party had turned into a front group.

[The Douche]

Pretty much. He said there were a lot of guys in there that were working for the Feds. Most of them were ultra-Schactmanites getting fed money to spy on leftists. They left and took the safe with them, leaving the party broke. A couple of guys rekindled the party last year and are working out of a small office in central PA. I feed bad for them but their party turned staunchly pro-government, pro-war and anti-communist by the 80s. They had no qualms about reporting anti-war individuals and organizations. The guy on the phone told me that they were pushed by the ultra-Schactmanites to support war and be more pro-American.

From the conversation I gathered that the party had turned into a front group.

Hmm, when I was in the SP-USA I kind of seem to remember some people having dual membership with SD-USA. (of course that doesn't mean they were necessarily pigs or anything)

[RadioRaheem84]

Hmm, when I was in the SP-USA I kind of seem to remember some people having dual membership with SD-USA. (of course that doesn't mean they were necessarily pigs or anything)

Probably. You never know. From what he told me the SD-USA lost of all their members. They had to totally regroup and contact lost members. It's a crazy situation and it makes me wonder just how much the Feds spy on leftist activities?

[The Douche]

Probably. You never know. From what he told me the SD-USA lost of all their members. They had to totally regroup and contact lost members. It's a crazy situation and it makes me wonder just how much the Feds spy on leftist activities?

I think its more common than we like to think. I know I found out that a meeting I was at for DAWN (DC anti-war network, the more militant face of the anti-war organizing in DC) had a police informant at it, and this was a planning meeting, not "open to the public" or whatever, it was for people representing specific groups involved in the protest.

I also used to play high school sports with a dude who went on to become a guard at camp david (the president's retreat) and in his backround check/interview they asked him what his relationship was to me.


And I am certainly not any sort of "big deal".

[RadioRaheem84]

That is strange. How paranoid are officials about us? It seems like nothing's really changed sinced the Cold War, it's just much more subtle.

[The Douche]

That is strange. How paranoid are officials about us? It seems like nothing's really changed sinced the Cold War, it's just much more subtle.

Well I think now its more about security and keeping tabs on the left as opposed to disrupting it.

[Wolf Larson]

I heard Bob Avakian supports aggression against Iran. Dig into that if you will. I was told this by a few Maoists.

[Sprocket Hole]

Monsieur Dupont wrote quite a bit critiquing anti-imperialist politics. Of course, none of it defends imperialism, it just describes imperialism as sort of a non-issue from a real pro-revolutionary perspective. i.e. There is no national equivalent of the proletarian, both countries are capitalist, and all national liberation will benefit only the local ruling class. This is not to say it's not a fucked thing, it's just that it has no place in the pro-revolutionary discourse.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Analogy fail. We also attack the Republican party. But its very anti-Marxist to compare a bourgeois phenomenon like the Democratic party to communist revolutions.

It's your assertion that these are communist revolutions. The problem is


For the people of the Third World, attacking their national liberation, just means you're supporting the continuation of imperialist rule, however innocent ideologically pure perspectives you may have.

Supporting national liberation is just as much a question of supporting imperialism as supporting the continuation of national oppression.

Also, being an internationalist has nothing to do with 'ideological purity' (what ever the hell that is). You don't know what you are on about.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'd also argue that Rosa Luxemburg's attack on national liberation, irrespective of the flowery justifications in theory, were wrong. The alternative provided by her of a purely working class world revolution is an unworkable one in the present circumstances. In the real world, attacking national liberation and communist revolution in the Third World is morally equal to a Western chauvinist position defending imperialism and neo-colonialism.

This is nothing but a personal opinion not supported by any serious argument. Your position is aa moralist and not a communist position, in fact you admit this yourself above.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I talked to a leader of the Social Democrats USA about a month ago and he told me that the now defunct party is trying to rebuild itself after the Schactmanites left. Apparently, they were a FBI front monitoring the left. They took control of the party in the late 70s and they left shortly after the Iraq War. They also took everything the Party had with them, raided the safe and took the membership list. So, the party functioned as a front to gather information about the left for the Feds. It was a front group. I think the leader worked for Freedom House. Weird.

The Pro War left are imperialists plain and simple.

Chegitz Guevara should chime in here.

Let me get it straight: so the FARTs who lost over control over the SP-USA formed the SD-USA, but the latter, a Blairite organization, got taken over by the FBI??? :confused:

[RadioRaheem84]

Chegitz Guevara should chime in here.

Let me get it straight: so the FARTs who lost over control over the SP-USA formed the SD-USA, but the latter, a Blairite organization, got taken over by the FBI??? :confused:

This is how it went:

I used to be a pro-war leftist, Hitchens-fan, liberal and all that so I had thought about joining the SD-USA but never did. I found out that it disbanded or something and it wasn't until this year that I found them again with a newly revamped website with all the pro-war stuff taken out. I was curious as to why the sudden change so I decided to email them and went into a back and forth with one of the leaders until he gave me his cell number to call him. Really nice guy.

Anyways, as he tells it; some ultra-Schactmanites with ties to some Federal Agencies kept pushing the party to go into a pro-war tilt during the run up to the Iraq War. The Party has always been very pro-Israel, pro-American and pro-non-leftist union (I believe they supported some third way trade union or something) but this time the support was a bit more serious after 9/11. Well, it turns out that one day they found their safe raided, membership list confiscated, and several leaders missing with no further contact. From what I gathered, I didn't think that it was a big deal to him (I am just speculating here though) that people in their group were keeping tabs on subversive activity as they're very defensive about liberal democracy and the US, etc. But I guess it finally dawned on him that a whole section of the party was infiltrated and set up as a front group to keep tabs on the Left in general.

He told me that the party has renounced it's old ultra-Schactmanite section and takes no official position on the war. They are more pro-socialist now and openly about it and less third way, but they're still a bit defensive on Israel. Otherwise, they're just a typical social democratic party.

Take a look:
http://torchandrose.socialdemocratsusa.org/webed/vol1issue01.shtml#article2

I mean one of it's main men was Penn Kemble, a rabidly anti-Communist social democrat who worked for Freedom House, the organization that pushes for US interests abroad under the guise that it's promoting democracy abroad. The rest of their leaders were Reagan cold War Democrats during the 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrats_USA

Of course they were a front group! The new Party, the small group in PA is trying to form, are actual Social Democrats that thought their Party was legit the entire time and want to continue the mission. I feel really bad for them.

[The Douche]

Chegitz Guevara should chime in here.

Let me get it straight: so the FARTs who lost over control over the SP-USA formed the SD-USA, but the latter, a Blairite organization, got taken over by the FBI??? :confused:

Chegitz would certainly be an authority here, but as I recall from my involvement in the SP, the FART never had control over the party, it was always (and I'm sure still is) the Debs Tendency.

I didn't ever see the FART as being the social democratic tendency in the party (though my memory may be flawed) I think the FART were Trotskyists. And there was some sort of social democratic tendency (or pre-tendency) in the party, but I think they bounced for the SD-USA.

[RadioRaheem84]

Who the hell are the FARTs:blink:?

[The Douche]

Who the hell are the FARTs:blink:?

"fist and rose tendency". They were (are?) a tendency in the SP.

[Devrim]

This is where your flawed definition of imperialism comes in. How can Palestine be as imperialist as Israel?

It is not a question of who is the most imperialist. Nor is it only a question of Palestine. The point is that in the epoch of imperialism, national liberation struggles have a tendency to become little more than tools within the imperialist conflict, and have nothing to offer the working class.

HAMAS is a tool of both the Iranian and Syrian bourgeoisie, and is used as a pawn in their power games.

Devrim

[zimmerwald1915]

This is what I'm talking about when I said that you're not internationalists, but just theoretical purists. What you said is totally disconnected to reality. It doesn't apply when Israeli bulldozers are routinely killing your children. Some people have the privilege to escape to other countries, but the majority of the oppressed do not have that privilege. What you're proposing just amounts to a defense of imperialist brutality.
You do know you two are talking on two different wavelengths, right? Devrim's talking about what actions communists take, and what actions they can support. Communists, being the most conscious, the most advanced sector of the working class, have a duty to that class to point out when it's being used, and to help it to develop its own autonomous struggle for its own interests. You are talking about the actions that many members of the working class currently take out of desperation and lack of a visible alternative. Devrim's point is that the duty of communists is not to reinforce this despiration, and not to hide their alternative because the working class isn't "there yet", but to be as open as possible that, yes, sectors of the working class sometimes make THE WRONG POLITICAL DECISIONS OMG!!!!11111!!!one

[red cat]

You do know you two are talking on two different wavelengths, right? Devrim's talking about what actions communists take, and what actions they can support. Communists, being the most conscious, the most advanced sector of the working class, have a duty to that class to point out when it's being used, and to help it to develop its own autonomous struggle for its own interests. You are talking about the actions that many members of the working class currently take out of desperation and lack of a visible alternative. Devrim's point is that the duty of communists is not to reinforce this despiration, and not to hide their alternative because the working class isn't "there yet", but to be as open as possible that, yes, sectors of the working class sometimes make THE WRONG POLITICAL DECISIONS OMG!!!!11111!!!one

I have a question here. Don't the left communists advocate something like "extending solidarity when the working class liberates itself" ? Correct me if I am wrong. They oppose vanguardism of any kind. If sections of the working class takes wrong decisions, then they are not liberating themselves. Hence the left communists have no say there. Right ?

I really must admit that I know very little about left communists except that they are dead scared of Maoists. So there might be many fallacies in my argument.

[zimmerwald1915]

I have a question here. Don't the left communists advocate something like "extending solidarity when the working class liberates itself" ? Correct me if I am wrong. They oppose vanguardism of any kind. If sections of the working class takes wrong decisions, then they are not liberating themselves. Hence the left communists have no say there. Right ?

I really must admit that I know very little about left communists except that they are dead scared of Maoists. So there might be many fallacies in my argument.
No tendency is monolithic. Some left communists are very "vanguardist" (I don't like that term myself, but you used it, so what the hey), while others are not. It comes down to how much a given group takes from people like Bordiga, Vercesi, and Damen versus how much a group takes from Gorter and Pannekoek.

All that aside, left communists consider revolutionary organizations part of the working class, but also the most politically advanced part. Hence there is no action of the working class that, theoretically, is not the concern of a revolutionary organization, that may not draw comment or intervention, or praise.

[red cat]

No tendency is monolithic. Some left communists are very "vanguardist" (I don't like that term myself, but you used it, so what the hey), while others are not. It comes down to how much a given group takes from people like Bordiga, Vercesi, and Damen versus how much a group takes from Gorter and Pannekoek.

All that aside, left communists consider revolutionary organizations part of the working class, but also the most politically advanced part. Hence there is no action of the working class that, theoretically, is not the concern of a revolutionary organization, that may not draw comment or intervention, or praise.

The politically advanced part is the vanguard. But left communists have some other weird theory.

I would like to see a Revlefter left communist speaking in favour of vanguardism.

[Madvillainy]

The politically advanced part is the vanguard. But left communists have some other weird theory.

I would like to see a Revlefter left communist speaking in favour of vanguardism.

Well I consider myself a left communist and I support the formation of a international, centralised communist party that will act as the vanguard of the working class. There is no other weird theory as you put it, this is the standard left communist position.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well I consider myself a left communist and I support the formation of a international, centralised communist party that will act as the vanguard of the working class. There is no other weird theory as you put it, this is the standard left communist position.
Methinks Red Cat's mislabeling Councilism or possibly Workerism as Left Communism. I'm physically quite tired at the moment, and don't really feel like going into their different backgrounds, so if someone else would like to do it, that'd be swell.

[red cat]

Well I consider myself a left communist and I support the formation of a international, centralised communist party that will act as the vanguard of the working class. There is no other weird theory as you put it, this is the standard left communist position.

I think most left communists here will disagree with you. Let's see their reaction to your post.

Does the ICC support your line ?

[Madvillainy]

I think most left communists here will disagree with you. Let's see their reaction to your post.

Does the ICC support your line ?

Yes, it part of their basic positions:


The revolutionary political organisation constitutes the vanguard of the working class and is an active factor in the generalisation of class consciousness within the proletariat. Its role is neither to ‘organise the working class’ nor to ‘take power’ in its name, but to participate actively in the movement towards the unification of struggles, towards workers taking control of them for themselves, and at the same time to draw out the revolutionary political goals of the proletariat’s combat.

[zimmerwald1915]

Yes, it part of their basic positions:
Thing is, the "Basic Positions" are...basic, a shorthand. ICC types gripe at this, and they rather prefer that people quote from their Platform:


If the general organisation of the class and the organisation of revolutionaries are part of the same movement, they are nonetheless two distinct things.

The first, the councils, regroup the whole class. The only criterion for belonging to them is to be a worker. The second, on the other hand, regroups only the revolutionary elements of the class. The criterion for membership is no longer sociological, but political: agreement on the programme and commitment to defend it. Because of this the vanguard of the class can include individuals who are not sociologically part of the working class but who, by breaking with the class they came out of, identify themselves with the historic class interests of the proletariat.

However, though the class and the organisation of its vanguard are two distinct things, they are not separate, external or opposed to one another as is claimed by the ‘Leninist’ tendencies on the one hand and by the workerist-councilist tendencies on the other. What both these conceptions deny is the fact that, far from clashing with each other, these two elements – the class and revolutionaries – actually complement each other as a whole and a part of the whole. Between the two of them there can never exist relations of force because communists "have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole" (Communist Manifesto).
It's a long quote, so the relevant bits have been emboldened for the reader's convenience.

[Devrim]

I think most left communists here will disagree with you. Let's see their reaction to your post.

Does the ICC support your line ?

I don't think so. Left communists, including the ICC, stand for an internationally centralised vanguard party.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

This is where your flawed definition of imperialism comes in. How can Palestine be as imperialist as Israel?

It's not merely an issue of whether or not an independant Palestinian state would be imperialist, but whether or not we can speak of 'national liberation' in any meaningful sense as opposed to the transfer of Palestine from the domination of one imperialist bloc to another.


Well, of course it doesn't. The problem is that people here are not internationalists at all, they're just ideologically pure.

Well, we can all be sophists, but actually responding to the point takes a little more effort. 'Ideological purity' (again, what ever that means) has nothing to do with the left communist position on the national question. It has never, it will never. To continue parroting this line shows either willful ignorance or shamefaced slander.


Well, you failed to address the issue of if a working class world revolution is possible right away without national liberation occurring first. Second, you failed to address the issue of neo-colonialist exploitation that is going on today and your solution to this. Don't tell me the solution to this also is a "world revolution" because then you would have made even that term meaningless.

I can't see where either of these issue where brought up in this thread previously so I'm not sure how exactly I've failed to address them more than anyone else.

Also, since you failed to address the issue, I take it you agree your position is a moralistic one.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Analogy fail. We also attack the Republican party. But its very anti-Marxist to compare a bourgeois phenomenon like the Democratic party to communist revolutions.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about communist revolutions, I was talking about national liberation movements, a bourgeois phenomenon.

For the people of the Third World, attacking their national liberation, just means you're supporting the continuation of imperialist rule, however innocent ideologically pure perspectives you may have.
And for many Democrat supporters, attacking the Democratic Party just means you're supporting Republican rule, however innocent ideologically pure perspectives you may have.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'd also argue that Rosa Luxemburg's attack on national liberation, irrespective of the flowery justifications in theory, were wrong.
You're wrong.

The alternative provided by her of a purely working class world revolution is an unworkable one in the present circumstances.
And the idea of a pure national state that's not dependent on an imperialist bloc is workable? :confused:

This is what I'm talking about when I said that you're not internationalists, but just theoretical purists. What you said is totally disconnected to reality. It doesn't apply when Israeli bulldozers are routinely killing your children. Some people have the privilege to escape to other countries, but the majority of the oppressed do not have that privilege. What you're proposing just amounts to a defense of imperialist brutality.
Yes, the majority of the oppressed do not have that privilege. Such as, for instance, Palestinians who were blocked by Hamas from fleeing to Egypt during the war last year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7801881.stm). What you're proposing just amounts to a defence of Hamas' brutality against the Palestinian working class.

But I would submit that attacking the national liberation struggles and communist revolutions is not only morally wrong but it is very much anti-worker and anti-communist.
And I would say that blurring the massive difference between nationalist struggles and communist revolutions is also pretty anti-worker and anti-communist.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

National liberation is not bourgeois.

Very convincing.


Which is what we are proposing, right?:rolleyes:
So you're proposing states that are still dependent on imperialist blocs? How is that in any way anti-imperialist?

You ignore all the things Zionist imperialism is doing and pick on a few random mistakes done by Hamas, which is still not a communist organization.
I don't ignore everything Israeli imperialism does, I recognise it has horrific effects. But since I know that, and you know that, I can't see much point in repeating things we both know in every post. But I can do it if you like: capitalism is bad, Israel does horrible things. Happy now?

It may be a massive difference to first world anarchists like you, with your rigid dogmatic framework of seeing the world, but not so for the people under imperialist and colonial oppression.

Hamas... is... not a communist organization.
So there's no difference between nat lib struggles and communist revolution, even though there's a difference? But I suppose a first-worlder like me could never understand how people living under colonialism feel, unlike you. Where is it that you're from again?

[FreeFocus]

Imperialism gets defended every time a leftist talks about European colonialism being "progressive," or the American Revolution being positive and progressive.

You can also make a solid argument that Left Communists, in effect, support imperialism, as support is not lent to a resistance organization unless it meets absolutely perfect criteria. I like a lot of what Left Communism offers, but this is a sticking point for me, as anti-imperialism figures prominently in my politics. No, national liberation isn't always perfectly communist, and there are a number of bourgeois "movements." Nonetheless, I don't think the majority of them are.

[RadioRaheem84]

You can also make a solid argument that Left Communists, in effect, support imperialism, as support is not lent to a resistance organization unless it meets absolutely perfect criteria. I like a lot of what Left Communism offers, but this is a sticking point for me, as anti-imperialism figures prominently in my politics. No, national liberation isn't always perfectly communist, and there are a number of bourgeois "movements." Nonetheless, I don't think the majority of them are.

I don't agree. Some national liberation movements are hardly progressive. The Baathists considered their movement to be anti-imperialist.

[red cat]

I don't agree. Some national liberation movements are hardly progressive. The Baathists considered their movement to be anti-imperialist.

Those movements always succumb to some form of imperialism or the other. National liberation movements cannot succeed today unless class leadership is provided by the proletariat.

[FreeFocus]

I don't agree. Some national liberation movements are hardly progressive. The Baathists considered their movement to be anti-imperialist.

I'm 100% sure I said in that post that there are bourgeois "movements" that claim to be for national liberation..but perhaps at some point, Baathists were anti-imperialist. It is an old, pan-Arab party if I'm not mistaken, from the era of British and French colonialism in the region.

[RadioRaheem84]

Those movements always succumb to some form of imperialism or the other. National liberation movements cannot succeed today unless class leadership is provided by the proletariat. .

Yes I believe the leader was part of the bourgeoisie and wanted a Pan Arab movement to oust European colonialism. As usual, the "socialism" in this movement respected private enterprise and advocated cultural supremacy.

The Iraqi Baath Party ended up trying to annex both Iran and Kuwait.


I'm 100% sure I said in that post that there are bourgeois "movements" that claim to be for national liberation..but perhaps at some point, Baathists were anti-imperialist. It is an old, pan-Arab party if I'm not mistaken, from the era of British and French colonialism in the region.

The early Baathists were serious in their national liberation struggle but at the time, several movements saw International Communism as a threat to national identity and thus kept the movement nationalist and rather racist.

Like I said, some national liberation movements are not progressive but regressive in their attempts to oust colonialists. Some of the radical Islamists in Iraq trying to liberate it from US occupation are horrible theocratic fascists.

[RadioRaheem84]

Most leftist support of US imperialism boils down to one thing. The prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of religous oligarchs in the Middle East but they [socialist supporters of US imperialism]come up with other justifications [in their own minds] http://linez.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/bob-afakean%E2%80%99s-cult-still-bashing-iran-as-imperialists-gear-up-for-military-strike/

Wait. Hold the phone. What's wrong with being against the Iranian regime? I understand that parroting neo-con babble is going too far but what is this link you posted saying claims that the regime is oppressive are unfounded?

[Wolf Larson]

Wait. Hold the phone. What's wrong with being against the Iranian regime? I understand that parroting neo-con babble is going too far but what is this link you posted saying claims that the regime is oppressive are unfounded?
War with Iran will not be war against the regime it will be war against the people. Who fights and dies in the wars? Not the regime. Being against the current leaders is good but supporting US aggression against Iran is bad. I also don't hold the views from that site. The OP wanted to read about socialist support fort imperialism. The people at monkeysmashesheaven have accused many socialists of doing just that.

Me personally, I don't support US aggression against Iran.

[RadioRaheem84]

War with Iran will not be war against the regime it will be war against the people. Who fights and dies in the wars? Not the regime. Being against the current leaders is good but supporting US aggression against Iran is bad. I also don't hold the views from that site. The OP wanted to read about socialist support fort imperialism. The people at monkeysmashesheaven have accused many socialists of doing just that.

Me personally, I don't support US aggression against Iran.

Well of course I don't support war or any US agression toward Iran. But the regime is anti worker. The link you posted seemed pro regime.

[Wolf Larson]

Well of course I don't support war or any US agression toward Iran. But the regime is anti worker. The link you posted seemed pro regime.
They're some pretty hard core Maoists over there. I think they think any enemy of the USA is their friend BUT the mentality I think is worse is the CODE PINK type mentality which has garnered support for US imperialism in Afghanistan because the culture in Afghanistan oppresses women. Code Pink was given access to capitalist non Pashtun women in the capital city-women who saw the US military as liberators after interviwing these women Code Pink started to show passive support for the US wars in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Not Iraq though....that's the "bad war".<br><br> Unlike Code Pink I can't side with US imperialism because there are some good, a few, one or two positive side effects and unlike the people at monkeysmashheaven I cant support any and all enemies of US imperialism. I support the Iranian people but I'm also aware the so called uprising in Iran right now is sponsored by capitalists who want McDonaldfication in Iran. The Iranian people need to organize against their current masters without US involvement- doing so with US involvement will simply switch their masters as was the case in the west when feudal lords were overthrown by capitalists. Obviously the situation is different but the power dynamics as far as switching one master for another would be the same. Also, I'm pretty sure the Maoists on that site do support Iran's current regime because they see it as one of the strongest forces fighting US imperialism. Again, just because I post it doesn't mean i agree with it :)

[black magick hustla]

Imperialism gets defended every time a leftist talks about European colonialism being "progressive," or the American Revolution being positive and progressive.

You can also make a solid argument that Left Communists, in effect, support imperialism, as support is not lent to a resistance organization unless it meets absolutely perfect criteria. I like a lot of what Left Communism offers, but this is a sticking point for me, as anti-imperialism figures prominently in my politics. No, national liberation isn't always perfectly communist, and there are a number of bourgeois "movements." Nonetheless, I don't think the majority of them are.
this reminds me of when i asked ward churchill about national liberation, and asked why have national liberation movements always ended as integrated to another bigger imperialist faction. he said this is because i am confusing the nation with the nation-state. very interesting argument, and i think this is the vibe i get from your posts - a sort of reference to old 60s new left nationalists like churchill.

the "nation" these leftists speak of is of course, a fantasy. whether the nation is true or not, and beyond whether or not this groups have a very warped image of their history, politicized nationalism, whether it is "anti-colonial" or not is a very recent phenomenon and it follows the ideological logic of capital.

[Niccolò Rossi]

That is where you're wrong and your flawed definition of imperialism comes in again. HAMAS represents an anti-imperialist force, not an imperialist one. Neither can you call the Iranian state an imperialist one. They may be both reactionary to the core, but they're not imperialist.

And we can assert the opposite. Just as with your dialouge with TUF, all you've given are assertions, so you haven't given anything I can respond to.


Ideological purity means taking the same failed line as many have done previously, from a mechanical and deterministic Second International understanding of Marxism.

This is a very strange definition of 'ideological purity'. More importantly though, I'm curious as to what 'failed line' the communist left adheres to which represents a 'mechanical and deterministic Second International understanding of Marxism'. Ironically it has been many 'ultra-leftists' who have criticised 'leninism' for this same crime (in almost identical words at that).


I can see how Bordiga's line was somewhat valid in the time of the Comintern, but I cannot see how being an "international minority" has any more relevance today.

I'm not sure what you are on about here. What line of Boridga are you referring to?


I see parties like yours wishing that the twentieth century never happened and the anti-colonial struggles never happened.

Firstly, the ICC is not a party.
Secondly, I am not a militant of the ICC.
Thridly, what you say regarding the twentieth centruy and the anti-colonial struggles is nonsense. Of course any communist would have preferred the victory of the international working class to the crushing counter-revolutionary experiences of last century including the blood split in anti-colonial struggles, but we don't play alternative history games. But lets set one thing straight, contrary to what you might like to think, the continuation of imperialism and national oppression in the form it did up until the anti-colonial revolutions is not something the communist left regard as referrable. In conflicts between capitalist states in this era, the victory of neither bourgeois faction is preferable. Despite this, we do take a side - the international working class.


I hate to make hasty generalizations, but such a line would unfortunately only appeal to conservative western youth today.

This is ironic in two senses. One, recent years have been characterised by the growth of left communist groups in countries where they have hitherto not held root, including numerous countries in Latin America and Asia. Two, the appeal of the communist left in the west and amoungst the youth is hardly comparable to that of the leftist parties (although there has also been a very significant growth in recent years in the latter). Aren't we always hearing about the wonderful growth of the PSL in where else but the belly of the beast itself?


The thing I'm most curious about is that though the ICC was formed during the struggles of May 68 where everyone was dropping away from dogmatism and especially the revisionist leadership of those times, your party went back to an orthodox strand of Second International-type of Marxism. I'm actually interested in knowing what caused that.

Without repeating my remarks from above, I'm curios as to what way in which

Also, to clarify, the ICC was not formed during the struggles of May '68. It was founded in 1975. Saying this, you are correct in your assessment of it's origins. The new generations which emerged from '68 and their commitement to criticism of the old ideas and the search for new ones - including going back on the historical experiences of the class struggle and re-establishing continuity with the revolutionaries of the old generation which had witnessed both the international revolutionary way following the Russian Revolution and the long period of counter-revolution - were essential to this.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Depends on what you mean by "dependent". If you think socialist states should not trade or maintain relations with imperialist countries, that's impossible.

National liberation is a step forward in the world communist revolution. The real world does not have such simple scenarios where a national liberation or a communist revolution are two opposed options. I would view national liberation led by a communist party to be followed by socialism as one of the possible scenarios depending on the economic development and level of feudal/colonial domination of the country in question.
And this is where meaningful discussion becomes impossible, since we can't discuss these questions without first deciding whether such "socialist states" are genuinely socialist or just state capitalist, and whether "socialism in one country" is even possible.


This is a very strange definition of 'ideological purity'. More importantly though, I'm curious as to what 'failed line' the communist left adheres to which represents a 'mechanical and deterministic Second International understanding of Marxism'. Ironically it has been many 'ultra-leftists' who have criticised 'leninism' for this same crime (in almost identical words at that).
Yeah, I can't claim to be a great expert on the Second International either way, but I was definitely under the impression that the "ultra-left" saw Leninism as a by-product of Kautskyism (http://af-north.org/wildcat/Barrot.htm).

[black magick hustla]

Bordiga's intransigent attempts to be independent of the Comintern. Bordiga was basically basing this opposition on a mechanical Second International understanding of Marxism which essentially rejects Lenin's contributions. I can of course sympathize with such a stance at that time given the proto-imperialist actions undertaken by the Comintern, I fail to see how one can continue this "opposition" today, except as a historical curiosity.


bordiga didn't try to be "independent" from the comintern. what the fuck are you talking about. he was a centralist, and when the comintern placed that clown gramsci in the icp bordiga resigned out of discipline and loyalty to the comintern. (even when he had the mayority of the party)



The Soviet victory over fascism was indeed something preferable to the international working class and I'm not saying that the SU was "capitalist". Such a stance regarding every war, irrespective of the content of the war, reflects the absence of empirical input to your theory.

nagazaki turned into a crater and dresden into a wasteland. i dont see any meaningful standard to say which one was better.



I don't know. Selfish globalized capitalist corporate culture is also pretty common in those countries. Seems like a weak way to prop up your opposition to national liberation. I hate the analogy, but its like the Jews in the Nazi party. That did not make them any less anti-semitic.

the mexican section is the second biggest and fastest growing.

it doesnt really matter though. i am honestly getting tired of your patronizing bullshit. so tell me, i am a self hating mexican?

[zimmerwald1915]

Let us talk about a hypothetical case in the future where a genuine socialist workers state does exist. In that case, I don't see how maintaining trade and diplomatic relations with imperialist countries makes it non-socialist.
Socialism is not possible in one country. This means that, perforce, the economy of a revolutionary country must still work according to the laws of capitalist economy as long as capitalism remains unconfronted by revolution everywhere else. So no, trade and diplomatic relations between revolutionary country/countries and non-revolutionary countries don't make revolutionary countries non-socialist. The pervasiveness of capitalist economic laws and the still-limited state of the world revolution make such countries non-socialist. What, then, are the tasks of revolutionary countries in a world where capitalism remains largely unconfronted by revolution? Obviously, their most important task is to spread revolution! This not only helps to secure the original revolutionary country, but also to build momentum and safeguard against one possible source of counter-revolution - that of imperialist military intervention. Diplomatic relations can indeed help further this goal: witness the activity of the Soviet Embassy in Germany in the early 1920s.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Bordiga's intransigent attempts to be independent of the Comintern. Bordiga was basically basing this opposition on a mechanical Second International understanding of Marxism which essentially rejects Lenin's contributions.

As Dada points out, you don't know what you are on about. Bordiga was a centralist and remained firmly committed to the Communist International, obeying discipline despite his difference in position over such questions as electoral participation and the united front. Infact one of the criticisms that can and has been levelled at Bordiga is his inability to break with the Communist International even once it's degeneration had become terminal.

[Wolf Larson]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-iran-possess-t129671/index.html?p=1683800#post1683800

[blake 3:17]

Didnt Rosa Luxembourg consider Western Imperialism/Colonialism a good thing and considered support for revolutionary nationalists in the colonies reactionary?

I think she did buy into a broad German chauvinism. Some of her writing on the Ukraine verges on racism.

This needs to be understood that she (as many other Marxists thought at the time) believed that Socialism would triumph in Germany within a very short period.

There are distinctions between imperialism and colonialism which are not unimportant, even if most Leftists lump them together.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why do some leftists go through this stage where they think that maybe an imperialist war against a fascist like government would be a good thing?

[AK]

Why do some leftists go through this stage where they think that maybe an imperialist war against a fascist like government would be a good thing?
Because they hate fascism and also fail to realise that the working class of the fascist country will take most of the death and the bombing.