Anti-Imperialism

[KC]

Since the previous thread which contained this post was trashed I figured I'd start a new one, as I am interested in hearing what others think about it and it is a pretty relevant criticism in terms of the left and leftists:


I don't think that these "anti-imperialists" (and there really is no better way of explaining them because they are really only concerned with "opposing imperialism," when you actually get down to the root of their belief system) were attempting to say that the white first-worlders are smarter than the brown third-worlders or whatever. In fact, I think it's the complete opposite.

The reason that anti-imperialists justify movements in developing countries through popularity, the implementation of social programs, etc... isn't because that's as good as they think the "brown people" can do, but rather because they have a very distorted world view which is based on, as I said in my earlier post, "the people" fighting "imperialism/imperialists". They define "the imperialists" for example as the US, and then in turn define "the people" or "the anti-imperialists" as anyone fighting against the US. Hence, they define the latter term negatively as those who are opposed to the US. Because of this very binary view (oppose imperialists/support anti-imperialists) they end up having to attempt to fit everyone into one box or the other.

Because not everything fits so nicely into two distinct, isolated boxes, they end up having to justify their decision to put a movement into one box or the other. "Chavez is anti-imperialist, as he is against the imperialist - the US - and therefore we should support him. We then, after the decision to support him, rationalize that decision with anything we have at our disposal." That is the thinking of the first-world "anti-imperialist".

The racism comes in only subtly, through the very framework of their belief system. "The people" will always take on an negative character, while "the imperialists" will generally mean the US or some other western country, which is generally considered "white". Thus the racism inherent in the framework isn't based on "white superiority" but rather "brown mysticism" or Orientalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Anti-imperialism" is a form of defencism, for good or ill.

[khad]

You're full of shit if you're trying to bring "orientalism" into this. That just shows your ignorance of the concept as well as your pathetic attempt to pin racism on anti-imperialists.

Where are the masculine/feminine binaries, the dichotomies of rational vs. emotive, and the indices of civilizational rise and decline?

You're obviously trying to load the discussion with your idiosyncratic, ill-defined terminologies.

[KC]

If you're just going to come in and say "you're full of shit" then what is the point in even responding? Maybe instead of saying "you're full of shit" you could instead say "I think you're wrong and this is why..." and I'd actually be receptive to what you have to say...

[khad]

If you're just going to come in and say "you're full of shit" then what is the point in even responding?
I gave you a cogent theoretical critique, and I've even changed the title of your thread to accurately reflect the nature of the discussion.

Your error is bringing orientalism into it. That racist article you linked was written by a dumbshit who knew nothing of the theoretical underpinnings of the critique of orientalism, and apparently you don't either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So did I, but he hasn't bothered to respond to either of us.

[KC]

Your error is bringing orientalism into it. That racist article you linked was written by a dumbshit who knew nothing of the theoretical underpinnings of the critique of orientalism, and apparently you don't either.

Elaborate and maybe you'd be up to an actual contribution to this thread.


So did I, but he hasn't bothered to respond to either of us.

I already told you years ago that as a rule of thumb I don't read or respond to your posts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm sorry, but what has this got to do with negation?

[khad]

Elaborate and maybe you'd be up to an actual contribution to this thread.
The thread is no longer about Orientalism because you couldn't even answer the basics. ie, where are the masculine/feminine binaries, the dichotomies of rational vs. emotive, and the indices of civilizational rise and decline?

This thread is now about negation, which is a term that more accurately reflects what you are describing. It isn't orientalism, in any case.


I already told you years ago that as a rule of thumb I don't read or respond to your posts.Well, look what dumbass can't even count to one. I have been on this year for about exactly one year.

I wonder where you pull years from that KC. Perhaps you were always too busy laughing at unemployed autoworkers (like that time in chat) to have learned how to count.

[KC]

This thread is now about negation, which is a term that more accurately reflects what you are describing. It isn't orientalism, in any case.

I'm with Rosa on this one.


Well, look what dumbass can't even count to one. I have been on this year for about exactly one year.

I wonder where you pull years from that KC.

Ah, now the mod flames me. I think you should check and see who I was responding to, because it certainly wasn't you (hint: look in your "Thanks" for that post).


Perhaps you were always too busy laughing at unemployed autoworkers (like that time in chat) to have learned how to count.

Wow you really do have a problem with staying on topic, don't you?

[khad]

I'm with Rosa on this one.
That's your right. Doesn't make you right.


Ah, now the mod flames me. I think you should check and see who I was responding to, because it certainly wasn't you (hint: look in your "Thanks" for that post).

Unfortunately for you, when you said that to JR, it's still less than a year.

Maybe we can have a discussion when you've passed that hurdle of being able to count to 1.


Wow you really do have a problem with staying on topic, don't you?
Being anti-worker? Using reverse-racist rhetoric? This stuff is relevant in any discussion.

[KC]

That's your right. Doesn't make you right.



what has this got to do with negation?I'm with Rosa on this one.

If you're not interested in answering the question then stop bringing it up.


Unfortunately for you, when you said that to JR, it's still less than a year.

JR's been here since 2007. It is now 2010. I told him years ago that I don't read or respond to his posts. Is there something about this that you're not understanding?

Do you really think that I can't count to 1?


Being anti-worker? Using reverse-racist rhetoric? This stuff is relevant in any discussion.Perhaps next you'd be interested in playing the "more proletarian than thou" game?

Or a better idea, if you're not going to address the topic then stop posting in it. How does that sound?

[khad]

If you're not interested in answering the question then stop bringing it up.
I already modified your thread for accuracy. You're the one still complaining.


JR's been here since 2007. I told him years ago that I don't read or respond to his posts. Is there something about this that you're not understanding?

Do you really think that I can't count to 1?
Looks like someone can't read either. I said:

"when you said that to JR, it's still less than a year."

You told him that less than one year ago.


Perhaps next you'd be interested in playing the "more proletarian than thou" game?
I'm sure you'd love it since you find unemployed workers funny.


Or a better idea, if you're not going to address the topic then stop posting in it. How does that sound?
Better yet, how about not restarting a thread trashed for racism just so you can trollbait another user into speaking on the hot potato of interimperialist conflict.

[KC]

I already modified your thread for accuracy. You're the one still complaining.I don't think I've complained anywhere in this thread. You've been the one complaining and initiating all of the personal attacks (i.e. calling me an asshole, telling me I can't count to 1, telling me I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about without actually saying why and engaging in discussion, etc...). I haven't personally attacked you once, and on numerous occasions have even attempted to get you to respond with an actual contribution to the thread, which you refused to do.


Looks like someone can't read either. I said:

"when you said that to JR, it's still less than a year."

You told him that less than one year ago.1. How would you know when I told him?
2. Why would I care if it was 1 year ago or more? Worse, why do you care?


Better yet, how about not restarting a thread trashed for racism just so you can trollbait another user into speaking on the hot potato of interimperialist conflict. I haven't "trollbaited" anyone. In fact I would welcome you not responding if you don't want to.


I'm sure you'd love it since you find unemployed workers funny.Yep it's absolutely hilarious. I'm going to go to sleep now; I have to wake up in 5 hours to work a 12 hour shift on site with someone that I think is attempting to get me fired so they can have my hours. Then I'd be, you know, unemployed without insurance, and that's just hilarious. Your turn!

Feel free to whine all you want in this thread but you're obviously not interested in any serious discussion here and so I'm not going to respond to your trollbaiting anymore.

[khad]

Feel free to whine all you want in this thread but you're obviously not interested in any serious discussion here and so I'm not going to respond to your trollbaiting anymore.
Cry some more. I gave you a cogent theoretical critique based on Said's critique of Orientalism, and you dismissed it. Obviously someone has a sense of entitlement.


You're full of shit if you're trying to bring "orientalism" into this. That just shows your ignorance of the concept as well as your pathetic attempt to pin racism on anti-imperialists.

Where are the masculine/feminine binaries, the dichotomies of rational vs. emotive, and the indices of civilizational rise and decline?

You're obviously trying to load the discussion with your idiosyncratic, ill-defined terminologies.

Your response:


If you're just going to come in and say "you're full of shit" then what is the point in even responding? Maybe instead of saying "you're full of shit" you could instead say "I think you're wrong and this is why..." and I'd actually be receptive to what you have to say...

No questions answered, just all bullshit from you.

EDIT: I see you trying to edit this thread again with your reverse-racist bullshit. Guess what? It's gone.

[Leo]

The thread is reinstated and reopened. I will not let attempts to block or sabotage ongoing discussions as long as I am able to. Nor will I allow posters, like KC here to be bullied like this. Changing the title of this thread was well out of order itself, and changing thread titles because you think they should be renamed due to your political opinions is not acceptable, let alone trashing it.

If poster of the original thread sees fit, I can merge this thread with the initial thread, which also is up.

[KC]

If poster of the original thread sees fit, I can merge this thread with the initial thread, which also is up.

Well if the original thread is intact then this thread is sort of redundant. Plus this entire thread is just khad whining at me and JR thanking him, so it's not like there's much substance to it. Do whatever you want with it.

[Palingenisis]

"Anti-imperialism" is a form of defencism, for good or ill.

Remember that the National Liberation struggles of China and Albania ended up with the construction of socialist power in those countries. Its hard to build socialism with Imperialists around the place to say the least.

[Glenn Beck]

Oh cool, the thread is back. Now we can all wank each other off and compare our idiosyncratic straw men of "anti-imperialism".

I've always found it more satisfying to rub one out with company, or is it an audience?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Remember that the National Liberation struggles of China and Albania ended up with the construction of socialist power in those countries. Its hard to build socialism with Imperialists around the place to say the least.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that you don't hear calls for grunt soldiers and the rest of the population in those countries to "march towards their home capitals."

Defencism has progressive and reactionary forms (none of which involves supporting things like the US invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan):

1) National liberation (mixed)

2) Siding with an imperialist power on the defense in an inter-imperialist war outside a revolutionary period (not wholly negative, since going this route of Engels depends on the ascending/declining character of said imperialist power)

[This example means things like siding with a hypothetical Chinese territorial re-integration through re-seizure of Taiwan, or siding with the commonality between Die Linke and the neoliberal ex-chancellor / Putin chum Schroeder re. replacing NATO with a European security alliance that includes Russia as a means to counter the US.]

3) Siding with an imperialist power on the defense in an inter-imperialist war during a revolutionary period (reactionary)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I see the title of the thread has been changed, so ignore my earlier question.:)

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that you don't hear calls for grunt soldiers and the rest of the population in those countries to "march towards their home capitals."

Defencism has progressive and reactionary forms (none of which involves supporting things like the US invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan):

1) National liberation (mixed)

2) Siding with an imperialist power on the defense in an inter-imperialist war outside a revolutionary period (not wholly negative, since going this route of Engels depends on the ascending/declining character of said imperialist power)

[This example means things like siding with a hypothetical Chinese territorial re-integration through re-seizure of Taiwan, or siding with the commonality between Die Linke and the neoliberal ex-chancellor / Putin chum Schroeder re. replacing NATO with a European security alliance that includes Russia as a means to counter the US.]

3) Siding with an imperialist power on the defense in an inter-imperialist war during a revolutionary period (reactionary)

I would say national liberation struggles are mixed but generally more progressive than reactionary, except when they are against an existing deformed worker's state and promoted by imperialism itself, in which case they are still mixed but become more reactionary than progressive.

[Queercommie Girl]

Imperialism is an important objective factor, and by this I don't just mean imperialism in the purely economist sense, but also in the political sense. Obviously class antagonism is the main form of contradiction and the ultimate basis for other types of contradictions. But it is excessively dogmatic and incorrect to assume that class antagonism is the only form of contradiction in the world. There are obviously other forms of antagonisms, based on factors such as race, nationality, gender, sexuality and gender identity. It is a mistake to ignore these in favour of "pure textbook-style economism".

[KC]

This thread is old.

[Kotze]

Because not everything fits so nicely into two distinct, isolated boxes, they end up having to justify their decision to put a movement into one box or the other. "Chavez is anti-imperialist, as he is against the imperialist - the US - and therefore we should support him. We then, after the decision to support him, rationalize that decision with anything we have at our disposal." That is the thinking of the first-world "anti-imperialist".A deduction that requires a ton of assumptions about what people you hardly know truly think isn't reliable. When somebody talks in binary terms one reason could be that she simplifys things for a listener to give him the gist of the situation, especially when she has the impression that the listener doesn't know much about the topic at hand. I have been following the development in Venezuela for 8 years now, but you don't know that, so when I say that the Chávez administration has improved many people's lifes you assume that I made a snap decision to be on Team Hugo based on something like his jokey antics (eg. calling the last US President the devil)? I hear self-proclaimed critical leftists calling me naive for that while endlessly repeating fake stories about how Chávez warned about a US earthquake weapon or about him cancelling a Cindy Lauper concert because he is an anti-gay dictator* and other bullshit.
This thread is old.Well, do you still stand by your theory of the binary-thinking self-hating whitey or did you repent?

*A story brought to you by gossip blogger Perez Hilton, the same Latin America expert who brought you the news of Fidel Castro's death in 2007. The Lauper story got copied by The Advocate, the Miami Herald, and many others.

[KC]

No I still hate whitey.

[Barry Lyndon]

A deduction that requires a ton of assumptions about what people you hardly know truly think isn't reliable. When somebody talks in binary terms one reason could be that she simplifys things for a listener to give him the gist of the situation, especially when she has the impression that the listener doesn't know much about the topic at hand. I have been following the development in Venezuela for 8 years now, but you don't know that, so when I say that the Chávez administration has improved many people's lifes you assume that I made a snap decision to be on Team Hugo based on something like his jokey antics (eg. calling the last US President the devil)? I hear self-proclaimed critical leftists calling me naive for that while endlessly repeating fake stories about how Chávez warned about a US earthquake weapon or about him cancelling a Cindy Lauper concert because he is an anti-gay dictator and other bullshit.Well, do you still stand by your theory of the binary-thinking self-hating whitey or did you repent?

This.

I would say that much of ultra-left demonization of Chavez and other revolutionary leaders in the Third World is grounded in a subconscious racism. This racism reveals itself when they eagerly accept any and all propaganda against him and others like him as fact, taking it as a given that non-white leaders are corrupt and despotic, charges that they no doubt would wish to see evidence for if it was a white political figure or intellectual.