Defeat for US/Brit good for World Revolution

[Starport]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
The growing confusion and infighting in Washington and London as result of military setbacks in Afghanistan show the weakness at the centre of imperialism. Excellent!

[Adi Shankara]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-

The growing confusion and infighting in Washington and London as result of military setbacks in Afghanistan show the weakness at the centre of imperialism. Excellent!

"Page Not Found

Continue to The Huffington Post » (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/)

Other things to try:

Search www.huffingtonpost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com):"

[Starport]

Page Not Found

Continue to The Huffington Post » (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/)

Other things to try:

Search www.huffingtonpost.com:

Thats it. Cheers

[Adi Shankara]

Thats it. Cheers

So you're basically just posting spam? This thread has "trash" written all over it...

[Starport]

So you're basically just posting spam? This thread has "trash" written all over it...

Go on then explain how you reach that conclusion.

[Adi Shankara]

Go on then explain how you reach that conclusion.

Well, you post a broken link, and I post what it said, and you said "that's it, cheers", which implies that's what you intended to get at with posting this.

You didn't post anything, just a broken link. since there is no story, there is nothing to discuss, which makes this spam, which makes this trash.

[Starport]

So you're basically just posting spam? This thread has "trash" written all over it...

Politicians, generals and all major capitalist news outlets are wringing their hands and scratching their heads wondering what to do about extracting themselves from their “shock and awe” failed interference in the civil war in Afghanistan – WITHOUT IT LOOKING LIKE A DEFEAT! Once the masses of the planet start to grasp fully that imperialism can be defeated in the middle of the greatest economic crisis in history the balance of power can shift to the revolutionary proletariat.

[Aldous Snow]

i support the mujahids in their fight against a foreign invader army.

Shit is worse for women under the Kharzai regime, your husband just claiming you cheated gets you life in prison, and your children share your fate.

The US installed a bunch of drug dealing meglomaniac warlords.

an insurgency can never fail if it has the backing of the people and a stockpile of weapons, whcih the guerrilla's do

[Starport]

Well, you post a broken link, and I post what it said, and you said "that's it, cheers", which implies that's what you intended to get at with posting this.

You didn't post anything, just a broken link. since there is no story, there is nothing to discuss, which makes this spam, which makes this trash.

What a silly person you are. Do you have anything to say about US defeat in the war or are you going to continue being silly?

[Starport]

i support the mujahids in their fight against a foreign invader army.

Shit is worse for women under the Kharzai regime, your husband just claiming you cheated gets you life in prison, and your children share your fate.

The US installed a bunch of drug dealing meglomaniac warlords.

an insurgency can never fail if it has the backing of the people and a stockpile of weapons, whcih the guerrilla's do

Yes but it is the effect that military setbacks are having on the imperialist centres is what is so useful because it demonstrates to everyone that the mighty war lords of imperialism are vulnerable to a concerted offensive. It demonstrates to the workers of the US and Britain that their ruling class can be defeated!

[Aldous Snow]

but the workers of the US and UK do not want them to be defeated.

Most people here support the wars, even having sons join up, waving flags all that bullshit.

The news makes it look likr the Taleban are winning, because it whips up nationalist sentiment and people go, our boys need better body armour, more helicopters, oh just take the money out of schools and hospitals to fund our glorious troops.

[Starport]

but the workers of the US and UK do not want them to be defeated.

Most people here support the wars, even having sons join up, waving flags all that bullshit.

The news makes it look likr the Taleban are winning, because it whips up nationalist sentiment and people go, our boys need better body armour, more helicopters, oh just take the money out of schools and hospitals to fund our glorious troops.

Yes much of the propaganda is always along those lines, but don't you recognise the growing discontent AS A RESULT OF THE SETBACKS?

[Aldous Snow]

only because they think its unwinnable,not because they disagree with the aims, which isnt that helpfull

[Starport]

only because they think its unwinnable,not because they disagree with the aims, which isnt that helpfull

On that basis, if the aims of this war of imperialism are thought to be "unwinnable" what else dose that say about the leadership of imperialism?

[Aldous Snow]

but that line of thinking is that of a marxist, mst people hate communism without knowing what it is, they donb't think like us, or see things the same way, i mean not to be a *****, but we do not think like the average joe

[Crux]

Because the taliban would never become a tool of us imperialism. Again.

[Aldous Snow]

it absolutley would, but the peoplehave chosen them as their choice to fight imperialism and we should support nationalliberation but after the struggle,denounce them once in power

[Starport]

but that line of thinking is that of a marxist, mst people hate communism without knowing what it is, they donb't think like us, or see things the same way, i mean not to be a *****, but we do not think like the average joe

What is the "average joe" as you say, and how do you know what she,he, or they think?

[Crux]

it absolutley would, but the peoplehave chosen them as their choice to fight imperialism and we should support nationalliberation but after the struggle,denounce them once in power
The people chose them? When exactly? Their obscurantist reactionary intepretation of islam *never* had widespread support, and the only reason they are even a force now that they are no longer propped up by the US is that they shoot on the U.S and the lack of a socialist alternative. This isn't a situation that should be cheered.

[Starport]

The people chose them? When exactly? Their obscurantist reactionary intepretation of islam *never* had widespread support, and the only reason they are even a force now that they are no longer propped up by the US is that they shoot on the U.S and the lack of a socialist alternative. This isn't a situation that should be cheered.

We might wish for a perfect insurrection but we will never see one. So unless we want imperialism, (biggest danger to the earth and its people) to win, we can only be delighted at the desperate confusion, internal conflict and liberal hand-wringing.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=410258247434

[Crux]

We might wish for a perfect insurrection but we will never see one. So unless we want imperialism, (biggest danger to the earth and its people) to win, we can only be delighted at the desperate confusion, internal conflict and liberal hand-wringing.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=410258247434
Yes, the classical liberal "anti-imperialism" of those who refuse to fight for genuine alternatives and content to take meaningless postures in favour in whatever movement holds a gun and, seemingly, opposes imperialism. We've all seen it before and where it ends. Indeed it's a very easy position to take, the marxist position and trying to live up to those tasks is a far more difficult position to take, as it is active, not passive cheerleading. Indeed imperialism is a great danger, that's why we cannot let it win. I do feel sorry for those poor communists misguided by positions like yours that actually have a presence in the thirdworld, because instend of humiliation, a is the case for you, they pay with their blodd (see for example the iraqi CP that supported the baathists, the tudeh party that supported khomeni, the syrian communist party that supported baathism, the list goes on). And don't try to strawman your way out of this, certanly sometimes temprorary alliances can and should be built, but capitulation, never.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is a difficult situation. The US has installed a horribly corrupt drug dealing warlord government that needs to be opposed but because of the lack of leftist opposition, the Taliban have filled the void. The US would have to literaly commit genocide against the native Pashtun. It's a sad situation for Afghanistan. I cannot fully say that a defeat for the US would help Afghanistan if the Taliban is asserting itself as a defacto power.

[pdcrofts]

Revolutionary communists siding with the Jihadis in order to make common cause is a theme that is explored by Pauline Melville in her novel Eating Air. It's never good to work under the rubric of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. What would happen after the Jihadis had pushed the imperialists out? The Jihadis would continue to be a pernicious influence on the world stage. We would be left with a big problem, just like the US was after creating the Jihadis in the first place to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan (a situation explained very well by John K. Cooley in his book Unholy Wars).

Returning to the main thrust of the thread, I think some people can see that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are failing, but not enough people care about it. The attrition rate is very low (compared to the Vietnam war, for instance), so it's not going to spark enough public protest to make the politicians take notice. I think we will have to wait a bit longer for the population to see imperialism failing and I think (sadly) this will not be brought about by any leftwing means, but by economic pressure. Britain and America can no longer afford these wars, their economies are heavily in debt. This may force them to pull out or scale back their operations.

[Starport]

Yes, the classical liberal "anti-imperialism" of those who refuse to fight for genuine alternatives and content to take meaningless postures in favour in whatever movement holds a gun and, seemingly, opposes imperialism. We've all seen it before and where it ends. Indeed it's a very easy position to take, the marxist position and trying to live up to those tasks is a far more difficult position to take, as it is active, not passive cheerleading. Indeed imperialism is a great danger, that's why we cannot let it win. I do feel sorry for those poor communists misguided by positions like yours that actually have a presence in the thirdworld, because instend of humiliation, a is the case for you, they pay with their blodd (see for example the iraqi CP that supported the baathists, the tudeh party that supported khomeni, the syrian communist party that supported baathism, the list goes on). And don't try to strawman your way out of this, certanly sometimes temprorary alliances can and should be built, but capitulation, never.


What kind of rebels never mind ‘revolutionaries’ is it that can’t recognise and cheer the humiliation of the most vicious war mongering imperialists in all history. The great greedy empire which has stamped its “shock and awe” dictatorship on the planet is being forced to contemplate defeat at the hands of the “axis of evil”, in truth only scattered bands of backward obscurantist lead framers, with hardly a working tank or a jet plain between them against the combined might of a coalition of the richest most sophisticatedly armed states in history.

Its not that imperialism could not use even more force, but that might expose the imperialist “nation building” propaganda bullshit for what it is and would stimulate even more anti-war sentiment at home than already exists. And that still might be what’s ahead.

The fact is that the steadily worsening economic crisis means that all the imperialist states have bigger fish of their own to fry. The tensions between them can only intensify bringing them into trade war and shooting war with each other at some point. The US is desperate to stay top dog and proving it’s got the muscle to enforce its position is vital to forestall more threatening challenges to its declining supremacy.

Of course we would prefer a communist revolution BUT THERE ISNT ONE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IS THERE? And we can deal with that question if you would like.

[Sam_b]

So you're basically just posting spam? This thread has "trash" written all over it...

Aye, but in fairness so are most of your posts.

[Crux]

What kind of rebels never mind ‘revolutionaries’ is it that can’t recognise and cheer the humiliation of the most vicious war mongering imperialists in all history. The great greedy empire which has stamped its “shock and awe” dictatorship on the planet is being forced to contemplate defeat at the hands of the “axis of evil”, in truth only scattered bands of backward obscurantist lead framers, with hardly a working tank or a jet plain between them against the combined might of a coalition of the richest most sophisticatedly armed states in history. It is not the "might" of the Taliban that cause the US to lose, although I understand why you might make that msitake.


Its not that imperialism could not use even more force, but that might expose the imperialist “nation building” propaganda bullshit for what it is and would stimulate even more anti-war sentiment at home than already exists. And that still might be what’s ahead.
And does not this come in conflict with your thesis?



The fact is that the steadily worsening economic crisis means that all the imperialist states have bigger fish of their own to fry. The tensions between them can only intensify bringing them into trade war and shooting war with each other at some point. The US is desperate to stay top dog and proving it’s got the muscle to enforce its position is vital to forestall more threatening challenges to its declining supremacy.
Well, maybe, but it is far more likely that it will be proxy wars, as is now.


Of course we would prefer a communist revolution BUT THERE ISNT ONE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IS THERE? And we can deal with that question if you would like.
And I would prefer if you were a socialist, but you aren't one are you? Defeatism towards the working class and it's capabilities is the greatest service anyone can do to imperialism.

[maoistboy]

not everyone who joins the resistance is a fanatic, alot are just peasants wanting to fight the imperialists.

Stalins view on imperialism was to support those who fight it, no matter how backwards their ideology, but then again, stalin was a wanker.

[Starport]

It is not the "might" of the Taliban that cause the US to lose, although I understand why you might make that msitake.


And does not this come in conflict with your thesis?


Well, maybe, but it is far more likely that it will be proxy wars, as is now.


And I would prefer if you were a socialist, but you aren't one are you? Defeatism towards the working class and it's capabilities is the greatest service anyone can do to imperialism.

"Should someone propose that we discuss as "concrete" questions of the working class socialist defeat of imperialism in Afghanistan or the length of a tail of a Bronx witch, then I am justified in posing in advance such questions as, does Afghanistan have a working class socialist revolution to defeat imperialism? are there witches at all?"

[Crux]

"Should someone propose that we discuss as "concrete" questions of the working class socialist defeat of imperialism in Afghanistan or the length of a tail of a Bronx witch, then I am justified in posing in advance such questions as, does Afghanistan have a working class socialist revolution to defeat imperialism? are there witches at all?"
I take it you retract your support for the taliban, as it seems quite concrete indeed. But trying to cop out of a debate you started does seem to fit with your style.

[Starport]

I take it you retract your support for the taliban, as it seems quite concrete indeed. But trying to cop out of a debate you started does seem to fit with your style.

Show where I support the Taliban.

[Crux]

Show where I support the Taliban.
By omission. If your statements on the iranian regime, and the statements you say you agree with, are anything to go by.

[Starport]

By omission. If your statements on the iranian regime, nad the statements you say you agree with, are anything to go by.

Just show where I support the Taliban please.

[Delenda Carthago]

One eyed anti imperialism is plain wrong.Not only US and UK are enemys,there is also the monster of eastern totalitarian capitalism growing.Russia and China are enemies too.So US defeating in an area where Russia is ruling,is not much of a victory,now is it?

[Crux]

Just show where I support the Taliban please.
By omission, as I said. in any case you're still dodging.

[Adi Shankara]

Aye, but in fairness so are most of your posts.

That's quite alright, the feeling is mutual ;)

[dearest chuck]

i support nato's civilizing mission in afghanistan. it is our historic duty as the most technologically advanced section of the global working class. every air strike on a wedding party is a blow against patriarchy.

[Starport]

By omission, as I said. in any case you're still dodging.

Well being as how you can't show where I support the Taliban, you must have invented it, so your argument collapses.

[Crux]

Well being as how you can't show where I support the Taliban, you must have invented it, so your argument collapses.
Not really, no, if you've bothered to read what I've said.

[Starport]

Not really, no, if you've bothered to read what I've said.

I’ sorry for you, at personal level, because the real world doesn’t fit in with your idealist scheme of things but really lying so blatantly isn’t going to help you, you know. Your attempt to set-up a silly argument in order to derail the debate by falsely calming that I support the Taliban is a cheep stunt by any standards, but then saying I did so by omission in order to get yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself is just daft.

This “you must be a witch because you can’t prove your not a witch” argument, is straight from the middle ages. Not only is it not anything to do with Marxist science it’s not even bourgeois science. Pathetic really.

But the good news is that even the chair of the Republican Party is having a crack at Obama now. Even if he has been leaned-on to back-track a bit it is evident that sections of the establishment are beginning to reflect growing unease about the dithering confusion about what to do in Afghanistan.

What a shame the left refuse to put the boot in where thy can. My guess is that the popular outcry against this crisis driven warmongering will have them following along before much longer.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/2/steele-afghan-mission-war-obamas-choosing/

[Starport]

Interesting to see how the US employers are, in practice, beginning to undermine support for the wars, but the 'left' are still refusing to welcome the setbacks for imperialism.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/1/returning-troops-face-new-fight-for-jobs/

[Hiratsuka]

I'm more interested in what the people of Afghanistan want rather than Westerners harping about imperialism from their arm chairs, to be honest. If they want NATO to stay for protection (as all polls indicate), then let it.

[RadioRaheem84]

^ Looks like we have a future signer of the Euston Manifesto here.

[Blackscare]

The reason Sankara said it was trash is you just posted a link to that rag the huffington post without any specific article. You're just posting a fucking website we all know about and don't care about.

[Starport]

I'm more interested in what the people of Afghanistan want rather than Westerners harping about imperialism from their arm chairs, to be honest. If they want NATO to stay for protection (as all polls indicate), then let it.

When you talk about "polls", do you mean the ballot box stuffing they called an election?

[Starport]

The reason Sankara said it was trash is you just posted a link to that rag the huffington post without any specific article. You're just posting a fucking website we all know about and don't care about.

I bet you could find reporting on the splits in imperialist ranks in most of the news outlets if you wanted to. Or do you need me to do it for you.

I'll take the silence as no.
Here you have it anyway
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/01/afghanistan-military-chiefs-alarmed-mixed-messages

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567303/Afghanistan-is-lost-says-Lord-Ashdown.html

[Starport]

The cuts of $4 billion ‘aid’ to the Afghan ‘nation building’ looks like sound judgment at long last after the latest revelations of corruption and bags of money disappearing through Kabul airport to Dubai.

"I do not intend to appropriate one more dime... until I have confidence that US taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords and terrorists" Nita Lowey, US Congresswoman.

But how long is it going to be before the even greater corruption of the arms procurement industry gets attention from establishment opportunists under pressure from budget cut workers demanding to know what happened to their taxes?

http://www.investingdaily.com/id/17191/how-to-profit-from-the-war-in-afghanistan-military-contractors-.html

"The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit." (Marx Capital Vol 3)

[Hiratsuka]

When you talk about "polls", do you mean the ballot box stuffing they called an election?

No, but in order to not digress too far...

Are you against letting NATO stay if the people there want it? I have enough faith in the people of Afghanistan that they'll judge whether or not they think the United States or local warlords associated with some "choice" branches of Islam are worse foes to the best of their abilities.

[danyboy27]

my opinion: it wont do jack shit.

it happened before, dozen of times, imperialist nation where forced out of the country they submitted for military or political reasons, or even economical ones.

one thing we can learn about the past, is that even when those superpower leave the ground, the game is still on, Proxy war, organized coup d'etat.

IF the karzai governement is overthrown by the taleban, you can be sure the game will still be on, with secret pact with those in power, financing of the karzai loyalist to blow shit up, secret airstrikes etc etc etc.

War is the continuation of politics, by other mean, and has long imperialist state will exist, war will be one of the mean to achieve their ends.

[Adi Shankara]

I bet you could find reporting on the splits in imperialist ranks in most of the news outlets if you wanted to. Or do you need me to do it for you.

I'll take the silence as no.
Here you have it anyway
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/01/afghanistan-military-chiefs-alarmed-mixed-messages

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567303/Afghanistan-is-lost-says-Lord-Ashdown.html

It doesn't take away the fact that when you pull some esoteric zen bullshit with a website everyone disregards, it just comes off as really annoying.

for, why did you post it in the first place? you think we can't find Huffington post without your benevolent help? lol

[Starport]

No, but in order to not digress too far...

Are you against letting NATO stay if the people there want it? I have enough faith in the people of Afghanistan that they'll judge whether or not they think the United States or local warlords associated with some "choice" branches of Islam are worse foes to the best of their abilities.

Again we have this idea of “the people” cropping up again and the question must be asked “which people”?

The place is in the grip of a civil war between Pashtu and others, the roots of which go back donkeys years and the presence of “NATO” is only exacerbating the situation by siding with one side just as they did in Vietnam.

Your question gives the impression that the US/NATO aren’t aware of this and that they are only there as some kind of Boy Scout movement or ‘Thunderbirds International Rescue’ operation. But not only “which people” ethnically/culturally is it, that you’re talking about, but which class of “people”? Capitalists, landowners, farmers, workers or the small middle class.

They have competing interests and competing aspirations in an already crisis ridden imperialist dominated world that cannot possibly meet their aspirations within a stable democratic environment. The place is a wreck of violence and corruption BECAUSE of NATO/ USA! You say you’re not in favour of the ballot box stuffing under Karzai, but that is what was secured by NATO imperialism.

If you are looking for “solutions” outside defeat for NATO, ultimately by the dictatorship of the international working class, you are going to be looking for a long time.

It was United States special operations forces that put Hamid Karzai in charge during Operation Enduring Mayhem /oops sorry/ Freedom. Ha.

[Starport]

my opinion: it wont do jack shit.

it happened before, dozen of times, imperialist nation where forced out of the country they submitted for military or political reasons, or even economical ones.

one thing we can learn about the past, is that even when those superpower leave the ground, the game is still on, Proxy war, organized coup d'etat.

IF the karzai governement is overthrown by the taleban, you can be sure the game will still be on, with secret pact with those in power, financing of the karzai loyalist to blow shit up, secret airstrikes etc etc etc.

War is the continuation of politics, by other mean, and has long imperialist state will exist, war will be one of the mean to achieve their ends.

I agree. So either we accept a future of eternal ignorance,poverty and war or develop our theory of how to finish this stupid vicious racket off once and for all time, because there no other "solutions". And the enemy is at 'home'.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You can't actually act against imperialism without acting against capitalism. Trading one group of imperialist overlords for another won't do it. The working class must do away with capitalism completely, and on a world scale.

"...England, the country that turns whole nations into her proletarians, that spans the whole world with her enormous arms, that has already once defrayed the cost of a European Restoration, the country in which class contradictions have reached their most acute and shameless form -- England seems to be the rock which breaks the revolutionary waves, the country where the new society is stifled before it is born. England dominates the world market. Any upheaval in economic relations in any country of the European continent, in the whole European continent without England, is a storm in a teacup. Industrial and commercial relations within each nation are governed by its intercourse with other nations, and depend on its relations with the world market. But the world market is dominated by England and England is dominated by the bourgeoisie.

"Thus, the liberation of Europe, whether brought about by the struggle of the oppressed nationalities for their independence or by overthrowing feudal absolutism, depends on the successful uprising of the French working class. Every social upheaval in France, however, is bound to be thwarted by the English bourgeoisie, by Great Britain's industrial and commercial domination of the world. Every partial social reform in France or on the European continent as a whole, if designed to be lasting, is merely a pious wish. Only a world war can break old England, as only this can provide the Chartists, the party of the organized English workers, with the conditions for a successful rising against their powerful oppressors. Only when the Chartists head the English government will the social revolution pass from the sphere of utopia to that of reality. But any European war in which England is involved is a world war, waged in Canada and Italy, in the East Indies and Prussia, in Africa and on the Danube. A European war will be the first result of a successful workers' revolution in France. England will head the counter-revolutionary armies, just as she did during the Napoleonic period, but the war itself will place her at the head of the revolutionary movement and she will repay the debt she owes to the revolution of the eighteenth century" - Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/01.htm)

[danyboy27]

I agree. So either we accept a future of eternal ignorance,poverty and war or develop our theory of how to finish this stupid vicious racket off once and for all time, because there no other "solutions". And the enemy is at 'home'.

i agree and all, i was just responding to your first post.

should we rejoice? no, beccause it will not have a significant impact on how things are done, i would rather spend my time looking for a solution.

the core of all this us within the U.S brand of global capitalism, wich mean, to alter the course of event, we shall find way to disrupt it. For the system, the current course is buisness has usual, a factor completly normal, lost or won, war or imperialism is just a part of a much much bigger system, the us losing it is a pre-determined factor in the system has well, that will not stop the continuation of the old order of things.

For the us militaro-industrial complex, loosing war mean developing news methods, tactics, and equipements, billion of dollars in research and developements, its just another opportunity to feed the machine.

[Starport]

i agree and all, i was just responding to your first post.

should we rejoice? no, beccause it will not have a significant impact on how things are done, i would rather spend my time looking for a solution.

the core of all this us within the U.S brand of global capitalism, wich mean, to alter the course of event, we shall find way to disrupt it. For the system, the current course is buisness has usual, a factor completly normal, lost or won, war or imperialism is just a part of a much much bigger system, the us losing it is a pre-determined factor in the system has well, that will not stop the continuation of the old order of things.

For the us militaro-industrial complex, loosing war mean developing news methods, tactics, and equipements, billion of dollars in research and developements, its just another opportunity to feed the machine.

V. I. Lenin

The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War

Published: Sotsial-Demorkrat No. 43, July 26, 1915. Published according to the text in Sotsial-Demorkrat.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, [197[4]], Moscow, Volume 21, pages 275-280.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup: D. Walters and R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2003 (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Other Formats: Text • README

During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government.

This is axiomatic, and disputed only by conscious partisans or helpless satellites of the social-chauvinists. Among the former, for instance, is Semkovsky of the Organising Committee (No. 2 of its Izvestia), and among the latter, Trotsky and Bukvoyed,[2] and Kautsky in Germany. To desire Russia’s defeat, Trotsky writes, is “an uncalled-for and absolutely unjustifiable concession to the political methodology of social-patriotism, which would replace the revolutionary struggle against the war and the conditions causing it, with an orientation—highly arbitrary in the present conditions—towards the lesser evil” (Nashe Slovo No. 105).

This is an instance of high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism. A “revolutionary struggle against the war” is merely an empty and meaningless exclamation, something at which the heroes of the Second International excel, unless it means revolutionary action against one’s own government even in wartime. One has only to do some thinking in order to understand this. Wartime revolutionary action against one’s own government indubitably means, not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such a defeat. ("Discerning reader”: note that this does not mean “blowing up bridges”, organising unsuccessful strikes in the war industries, and ·in general helping the government defeat the revolutionaries.)

The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany. (Bukvoyed and Semkovsky give more direct expression to the “thought”, or rather want of thought, which they share with Trotsky.) But Trotsky regards this as the “methodology of social-patriotism"! To help people that are unable to think for themselves, the Berne resolution (Sotsial Demokrat No. 40)[1] made it clear, that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government. Bukvoyed and Trotsky preferred to avoid this truth, while Semkovsky (an opportunist who is more useful to the working class than all the others, thanks to his naively frank reiteration of bourgeois wisdom) blurted out the following: “This is nonsense, because either Germany or Russia can win” (Izvestia No. 2).

Take the example of the Paris Commune. France was defeated by Germany but the workers were defeated by Bismarck and Thiers! Had Bukvoyed and Trotsky done a little thinking, they would have realised that they have adopted the viewpoint on the war held by governments and the bourgeoisie, i.e., that they cringe to the “political methodology of social-patriotism”, to use Trotsky’s pretentious language.

A revolution in wartime means civil war; the conversion of a war between governments into a civil war is, on the one hand, facilitated by military reverses ("defeats") of governments; on the other hand, one cannot actually strive for such a conversion without thereby facilitating defeat.

The reason why the chauvinists (including the Organising Committee and the Chkheidze group) repudiate the defeat “slogan” is that this slogan alone implies a consistent call for revolutionary action against one’s own government in wartime. Without such action, millions of ultra-revolutionary phrases such as a war against “the war and the conditions, etc." are not worth a brass farthing.

Anyone who would in all earnest refute the “slogan” of defeat for one’s own government in the imperialist war should prove one of three things: (1) that the war of 1914-15 is not reactionary, or (2) that a revolution stemming from that war is impossible, or (3) that co-ordination and mutual aid are possible between revolutionary movements in all the belligerent countries. The third point is particularly important to Russia, a most backward country, where an immediate socialist revolution is impossible. That is why the Russian Social-Democrats had to be the first to advance the “theory and practice” of the defeat “slogan”. The tsarist government was perfectly right in asserting that the agitation conducted by the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma—the sole instance in the International, not only of parliamentary opposition but of genuine revolutionary anti-government agitation among the masses—that this agitation has weakened Russia’s “military might” and is likely to lead to its defeat. This is a fact to which it is foolish to close one’s eyes.

The opponents of the defeat slogan are simply afraid of themselves when they refuse to recognise the very obvious fact of the inseparable link between revolutionary agitation against the government and helping bring about its defeat.

Are co-ordination and mutual aid possible between the Russian movement, which is revolutionary in the bourgeois- democratic sense, and the socialist movement in the West? No socialist who has publicly spoken on the matter during the last decade has doubted this, the movement among the Austrian proletariat after October 17, 1905,[3] actually proving it possible.

Ask any Social-Democrat who calls himself an internationalist whether or not he approves of an understanding between the Social-Democrats of the various belligerent countries on joint revolutionary action against all belligerent governments. Many of them will reply that it is impossible, as Kautsky has done (Die Neue Zeit, October 2, 1914), thereby fully proving his social-chauvinism. This, on the one hand, is a deliberate and vicious lie, which clashes with the generally known facts and the Basle Manifesto. On the other hand, if it were true, the opportunists would be quite right in many respects!

Many will voice their approval of such an understanding. To this we shall say: if this approval is not hypocritical, it is ridiculous to think that, in wartime and for the conduct of a war, some “formal” understanding is necessary, such as the election of representatives, the arrangement of a meeting, the signing of an agreement, and the choice of the day and hour! Only the Semkovskys are capable of thinking so. An understanding on revolutionary action even in a single country, to say nothing of a number of countries, can be achieved only by the force of the example of serious revolutionary action, by launching such action and developing it. However, such action cannot be launched without desiring the defeat of the government, and without contributing to such a defeat. The conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war cannot be “made”, any more than a revolution can be “made”. It develops out of a number of diverse phenomena, aspects, features, characteristics and consequences of the imperialist war. That development is impossible without a series of military reverses and defeats of governments that receive blows from their own oppressed classes.

To repudiate the defeat slogan means allowing one’s revolutionary ardour to degenerate into an empty phrase, or sheer hypocrisy.

What is the substitute proposed for the defeat slogan? It is that of “neither victory nor defeat” (Semkovsky in Izvestia No. 2; also the entire Organising Committee in No. 1). This, however, is nothing but a paraphrase of the “defence of the fatherland” slogan. It means shifting the issue to the level of a war between governments (who, according to the content of this slogan, are to keep to their old stand, “retain their positions"), and not to the level of the struggle of the oppressed classes against their governments! It means justifying the chauvinism of all the imperialist nations, whose bourgeoisie are always ready to say—and do say to the people—that they are “only” fighting “against defeat”. “The significance of our August 4 vote was that we are not for war but against defeat," David, a leader of the opportunists, writes in his book. The Organising Committee, together with Bukvoyed and Trotsky, stand on fully the same ground as David when they defend the “neither-victory nor-defeat” slogan.

On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean a “class truce”, the renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one’s “own” bourgeoisie, one’s “own” government, whereas dealing a blow at one’s own government in wartime is (for Bukvoyed’s information) high treason, means contributing to the defeat of one’s own country. Those who accept the “neither victory-nor-defeat” slogan can only be hypocritically in favour of the class struggle, of “disrupting the class truce”; in practice, such people are renouncing an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding the imperialist governments against defeat. The only policy of actual, not verbal disruption of the “class truce”, of acceptance of the class struggle, is for the proletariat to take advantage of the difficulties experienced by its government and its bourgeoisie in order to overthrow them. This, however, cannot be achieved or striven for, without desiring the defeat of one’s own government and without contributing to that defeat.

When, before the war, the Italian Social-Democrats raised the question of a mass strike, the bourgeoisie replied, no doubt correctly from their own point of view, that this would be high treason, and that Social-Democrats would be dealt with as traitors. That is true, just as it is true that fraternisation in the trenches is high treason. Those who write against “high treason”, as Bukvoyed does, or against the “disintegration of Russia”, as Semkovsky does, are adopting the bourgeois, not the proletarian point of view. A proletarian cannot deal a class blow at his government or hold out (in fact) a hand to his brother, the proletarian of the “foreign” country which is at war with “our side”, without committing “high treason”, without contributing to the defeat, to the disintegration of his “own”, imperialist “Great” Power.

Whoever is in favour of the slogan of “neither victory nor defeat” is consciously or unconsciously a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case he is an -enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing ·governments, of the present-day ruling classes.

Let us look at the question from yet another angle. The war cannot but evoke among the masses the most turbulent sentiments, which upset the usual sluggish state of mass mentality. Revolutionary tactics are impossible if they are not adjusted to these new turbulent sentiments.

What are the main currents of these turbulent sentiments? They are: (1) Horror and despair. Hence, a growth of religious feeling. Again the churches are crowded, the reactionaries joyfully declare. “Wherever there is suffering there is religion," says the arch-reactionary Barr s. He is right, too. (2) Hatred of the “enemy”, a sentiment that is carefully fostered by the bourgeoisie (not so much by the priests), arid is of economic and political value only to the bourgeoisie. (3) Hatred of one’s own government and one’s own bourgeoisie—the sentiment of all class-conscious workers who understand, on the one hand, that war is a “continuation of the politics” of imperialism, which they counter by a “continuation” of their hatred of their class enemy, and, on the other hand, that “a war against war” is a banal phrase unless it means a revolution against their own government. Hatred of one’s own government and one’s own bourgeoisie cannot be aroused unless their defeat is desired; one cannot be a sincere opponent of a civil (i.e., class) truce without arousing hatred of one’s own government and bourgeoisie!

Those who stand for the “neither-victory-nor-defeat” slogan are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for they do not believe in the possibility of inter national revolutionary action by the working class against their own governments, and do not wish to help develop such action, which, though undoubtedly difficult, is the only task worthy of a proletarian, the only socialist task. It is the proletariat in the most backward of the belligerent Great Powers which, through the medium of their party, have had to adopt—especially in view of the shameful treachery of the German and French Social-Democrats— revolutionary tactics that are quite unfeasible unless they “contribute to the defeat” of their own government, but which alone lead to a European revolution, to the permanent peace of socialism, to the liberation of humanity from the horrors, misery, savagery and brutality now prevailing.

Notes

[1] See p. 163 of this volume.—Ed.

[2] Bukvoyed-D. Ryazanov.

[3] This refers to the tsar’s manifesto promulgated on October 17 (30), 1905. It promised "civil liberties" and a “legislative Duma”. The manifesto was a concession wrested from the tsarist regime by the revolution, but that concession by no means decided the fate of the revolution as the liberals and Mensheviks claimed, The Bolsheviks exposed the real meaning of the Manifesto and called upon the masses to continue the struggle and overthrow the autocracy.

The first Russian revolution exerted a great revolutionising influence on the working-class movement in other countries, in particular in Austria-Hungary. Lenin pointed out that the news about the tsar’s concession and his manifesto, with its promise of “liberties”, “played a decisive part in the final victory of universal suffrage in Austria”.

Mass demonstrations took place in Vienna and other industrial cities in Austria-Hungary. In Prague barricades were put up. As a result, universal suffrage was introduced in Austria. BOLD ADDED

This might sort the Leninist Revolutionaries from the rest. Remember Lenin is talking about war between Russia and the IMPERIAL GERMAN ARMY not just some scatted bands of Taliban!

[danyboy27]

V. I. Lenin

The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War

Published: Sotsial-Demorkrat No. 43, July 26, 1915. Published according to the text in Sotsial-Demorkrat.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, [197[4]], Moscow, Volume 21, pages 275-280.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup: D. Walters and R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2003 (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Other Formats: Text • README

During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government.

This is axiomatic, and disputed only by conscious partisans or helpless satellites of the social-chauvinists. Among the former, for instance, is Semkovsky of the Organising Committee (No. 2 of its Izvestia), and among the latter, Trotsky and Bukvoyed,[2] and Kautsky in Germany. To desire Russia’s defeat, Trotsky writes, is “an uncalled-for and absolutely unjustifiable concession to the political methodology of social-patriotism, which would replace the revolutionary struggle against the war and the conditions causing it, with an orientation—highly arbitrary in the present conditions—towards the lesser evil” (Nashe Slovo No. 105).

This is an instance of high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism. A “revolutionary struggle against the war” is merely an empty and meaningless exclamation, something at which the heroes of the Second International excel, unless it means revolutionary action against one’s own government even in wartime. One has only to do some thinking in order to understand this. Wartime revolutionary action against one’s own government indubitably means, not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such a defeat. ("Discerning reader”: note that this does not mean “blowing up bridges”, organising unsuccessful strikes in the war industries, and ·in general helping the government defeat the revolutionaries.)

The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany. (Bukvoyed and Semkovsky give more direct expression to the “thought”, or rather want of thought, which they share with Trotsky.) But Trotsky regards this as the “methodology of social-patriotism"! To help people that are unable to think for themselves, the Berne resolution (Sotsial Demokrat No. 40)[1] made it clear, that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government. Bukvoyed and Trotsky preferred to avoid this truth, while Semkovsky (an opportunist who is more useful to the working class than all the others, thanks to his naively frank reiteration of bourgeois wisdom) blurted out the following: “This is nonsense, because either Germany or Russia can win” (Izvestia No. 2).

Take the example of the Paris Commune. France was defeated by Germany but the workers were defeated by Bismarck and Thiers! Had Bukvoyed and Trotsky done a little thinking, they would have realised that they have adopted the viewpoint on the war held by governments and the bourgeoisie, i.e., that they cringe to the “political methodology of social-patriotism”, to use Trotsky’s pretentious language.

A revolution in wartime means civil war; the conversion of a war between governments into a civil war is, on the one hand, facilitated by military reverses ("defeats") of governments; on the other hand, one cannot actually strive for such a conversion without thereby facilitating defeat.

The reason why the chauvinists (including the Organising Committee and the Chkheidze group) repudiate the defeat “slogan” is that this slogan alone implies a consistent call for revolutionary action against one’s own government in wartime. Without such action, millions of ultra-revolutionary phrases such as a war against “the war and the conditions, etc." are not worth a brass farthing.

Anyone who would in all earnest refute the “slogan” of defeat for one’s own government in the imperialist war should prove one of three things: (1) that the war of 1914-15 is not reactionary, or (2) that a revolution stemming from that war is impossible, or (3) that co-ordination and mutual aid are possible between revolutionary movements in all the belligerent countries. The third point is particularly important to Russia, a most backward country, where an immediate socialist revolution is impossible. That is why the Russian Social-Democrats had to be the first to advance the “theory and practice” of the defeat “slogan”. The tsarist government was perfectly right in asserting that the agitation conducted by the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma—the sole instance in the International, not only of parliamentary opposition but of genuine revolutionary anti-government agitation among the masses—that this agitation has weakened Russia’s “military might” and is likely to lead to its defeat. This is a fact to which it is foolish to close one’s eyes.

The opponents of the defeat slogan are simply afraid of themselves when they refuse to recognise the very obvious fact of the inseparable link between revolutionary agitation against the government and helping bring about its defeat.

Are co-ordination and mutual aid possible between the Russian movement, which is revolutionary in the bourgeois- democratic sense, and the socialist movement in the West? No socialist who has publicly spoken on the matter during the last decade has doubted this, the movement among the Austrian proletariat after October 17, 1905,[3] actually proving it possible.

Ask any Social-Democrat who calls himself an internationalist whether or not he approves of an understanding between the Social-Democrats of the various belligerent countries on joint revolutionary action against all belligerent governments. Many of them will reply that it is impossible, as Kautsky has done (Die Neue Zeit, October 2, 1914), thereby fully proving his social-chauvinism. This, on the one hand, is a deliberate and vicious lie, which clashes with the generally known facts and the Basle Manifesto. On the other hand, if it were true, the opportunists would be quite right in many respects!

Many will voice their approval of such an understanding. To this we shall say: if this approval is not hypocritical, it is ridiculous to think that, in wartime and for the conduct of a war, some “formal” understanding is necessary, such as the election of representatives, the arrangement of a meeting, the signing of an agreement, and the choice of the day and hour! Only the Semkovskys are capable of thinking so. An understanding on revolutionary action even in a single country, to say nothing of a number of countries, can be achieved only by the force of the example of serious revolutionary action, by launching such action and developing it. However, such action cannot be launched without desiring the defeat of the government, and without contributing to such a defeat. The conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war cannot be “made”, any more than a revolution can be “made”. It develops out of a number of diverse phenomena, aspects, features, characteristics and consequences of the imperialist war. That development is impossible without a series of military reverses and defeats of governments that receive blows from their own oppressed classes.

To repudiate the defeat slogan means allowing one’s revolutionary ardour to degenerate into an empty phrase, or sheer hypocrisy.

What is the substitute proposed for the defeat slogan? It is that of “neither victory nor defeat” (Semkovsky in Izvestia No. 2; also the entire Organising Committee in No. 1). This, however, is nothing but a paraphrase of the “defence of the fatherland” slogan. It means shifting the issue to the level of a war between governments (who, according to the content of this slogan, are to keep to their old stand, “retain their positions"), and not to the level of the struggle of the oppressed classes against their governments! It means justifying the chauvinism of all the imperialist nations, whose bourgeoisie are always ready to say—and do say to the people—that they are “only” fighting “against defeat”. “The significance of our August 4 vote was that we are not for war but against defeat," David, a leader of the opportunists, writes in his book. The Organising Committee, together with Bukvoyed and Trotsky, stand on fully the same ground as David when they defend the “neither-victory nor-defeat” slogan.

On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean a “class truce”, the renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one’s “own” bourgeoisie, one’s “own” government, whereas dealing a blow at one’s own government in wartime is (for Bukvoyed’s information) high treason, means contributing to the defeat of one’s own country. Those who accept the “neither victory-nor-defeat” slogan can only be hypocritically in favour of the class struggle, of “disrupting the class truce”; in practice, such people are renouncing an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding the imperialist governments against defeat. The only policy of actual, not verbal disruption of the “class truce”, of acceptance of the class struggle, is for the proletariat to take advantage of the difficulties experienced by its government and its bourgeoisie in order to overthrow them. This, however, cannot be achieved or striven for, without desiring the defeat of one’s own government and without contributing to that defeat.

When, before the war, the Italian Social-Democrats raised the question of a mass strike, the bourgeoisie replied, no doubt correctly from their own point of view, that this would be high treason, and that Social-Democrats would be dealt with as traitors. That is true, just as it is true that fraternisation in the trenches is high treason. Those who write against “high treason”, as Bukvoyed does, or against the “disintegration of Russia”, as Semkovsky does, are adopting the bourgeois, not the proletarian point of view. A proletarian cannot deal a class blow at his government or hold out (in fact) a hand to his brother, the proletarian of the “foreign” country which is at war with “our side”, without committing “high treason”, without contributing to the defeat, to the disintegration of his “own”, imperialist “Great” Power.

Whoever is in favour of the slogan of “neither victory nor defeat” is consciously or unconsciously a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case he is an -enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing ·governments, of the present-day ruling classes.

Let us look at the question from yet another angle. The war cannot but evoke among the masses the most turbulent sentiments, which upset the usual sluggish state of mass mentality. Revolutionary tactics are impossible if they are not adjusted to these new turbulent sentiments.

What are the main currents of these turbulent sentiments? They are: (1) Horror and despair. Hence, a growth of religious feeling. Again the churches are crowded, the reactionaries joyfully declare. “Wherever there is suffering there is religion," says the arch-reactionary Barr s. He is right, too. (2) Hatred of the “enemy”, a sentiment that is carefully fostered by the bourgeoisie (not so much by the priests), arid is of economic and political value only to the bourgeoisie. (3) Hatred of one’s own government and one’s own bourgeoisie—the sentiment of all class-conscious workers who understand, on the one hand, that war is a “continuation of the politics” of imperialism, which they counter by a “continuation” of their hatred of their class enemy, and, on the other hand, that “a war against war” is a banal phrase unless it means a revolution against their own government. Hatred of one’s own government and one’s own bourgeoisie cannot be aroused unless their defeat is desired; one cannot be a sincere opponent of a civil (i.e., class) truce without arousing hatred of one’s own government and bourgeoisie!

Those who stand for the “neither-victory-nor-defeat” slogan are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for they do not believe in the possibility of inter national revolutionary action by the working class against their own governments, and do not wish to help develop such action, which, though undoubtedly difficult, is the only task worthy of a proletarian, the only socialist task. It is the proletariat in the most backward of the belligerent Great Powers which, through the medium of their party, have had to adopt—especially in view of the shameful treachery of the German and French Social-Democrats— revolutionary tactics that are quite unfeasible unless they “contribute to the defeat” of their own government, but which alone lead to a European revolution, to the permanent peace of socialism, to the liberation of humanity from the horrors, misery, savagery and brutality now prevailing.

Notes

[1] See p. 163 of this volume.—Ed.

[2] Bukvoyed-D. Ryazanov.

[3] This refers to the tsar’s manifesto promulgated on October 17 (30), 1905. It promised "civil liberties" and a “legislative Duma”. The manifesto was a concession wrested from the tsarist regime by the revolution, but that concession by no means decided the fate of the revolution as the liberals and Mensheviks claimed, The Bolsheviks exposed the real meaning of the Manifesto and called upon the masses to continue the struggle and overthrow the autocracy.

The first Russian revolution exerted a great revolutionising influence on the working-class movement in other countries, in particular in Austria-Hungary. Lenin pointed out that the news about the tsar’s concession and his manifesto, with its promise of “liberties”, “played a decisive part in the final victory of universal suffrage in Austria”.

Mass demonstrations took place in Vienna and other industrial cities in Austria-Hungary. In Prague barricades were put up. As a result, universal suffrage was introduced in Austria. BOLD ADDED

This might sort the Leninist Revolutionaries from the rest. Remember Lenin is talking about war between Russia and the IMPERIAL GERMAN ARMY not just some scatted bands of Taliban!

this speech was dirrected back then at the russian who where dirrectly thretened, this is completly irrelevant for the current situation topic beccause you are asking us, people who dosnt live in afghanistan to rejoice of the defeat of the us.

also, even if the text was relevant with your first post, the taleban are far from being a progressive force, and just like your text mention, its all a bout a progressive force fighting a reactionary force, not 2 reactionaries forces fighting one against another.

but beyond all that, defeat of the us =/= end of suffering and imperialism for the afghani.

also, stop trying to implies that i support the bourgeoisie, this is simply stupid.

[Starport]

this speech was dirrected back then at the russian who where dirrectly thretened, this is completly irrelevant for the current situation topic beccause you are asking us, people who dosnt live in afghanistan to rejoice of the defeat of the us.

also, even if the text was relevant with your first post, the taleban are far from being a progressive force, and just like your text mention, its all a bout a progressive force fighting a reactionary force, not 2 reactionaries forces fighting one against another.

but beyond all that, defeat of the us =/= end of suffering and imperialism for the afghani.

also, stop trying to implies that i support the bourgeoisie, this is simply stupid.

I think you have not fully understood what Lenin was talking about in this work.

He is saying that:
the Russian workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers.
the German workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers.
the British workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers.

SO:
the Afghan workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers.
the US workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers.
The rulers are all reactionary. Lenin is not saying anything about supporting any of them.
So what do you mean by: "its all a bout a progressive force fighting a reactionary force, not 2 reactionaries forces fighting one against another."


Which are the "progressive" forces you talk about?

[Starport]

also, stop trying to implies that i support the bourgeoisie, this is simply stupid.

Suppose Canada and Britain were at war with each other. If we are both revolutionaries I would expect you to work for the defeat of the Canadian ruling class and me to work for the defeat of the British ruling class. That dose not mean we support the 'enemy' of our ruling class.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, the 'progressive' forces are those resisting Imperialism, right?

Or, wait, are the 'progressive' forces the ones opposed to a reactionary, mysoginistic tyrannous theocracy?

Oh, well, we could say that they're both progressive, and whoever wins, it's all a spiffing victory?

Or, you know, 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war'?

[Starport]

Well, the 'progressive' forces are those resisting Imperialism, right?

You might say so, but I said nothing of the sort.


Or, wait, are the 'progressive' forces the ones opposed to a reactionary, mysoginistic tyrannous theocracy?

Not if they are imperialists, they are not.


Oh, well, we could say that they're both progressive, and whoever wins, it's all a spiffing victory?

You might.


Or, you know, 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war'?

Now that sounds more like it.

[danyboy27]

I think you have not fully understood what Lenin was talking about in this work.

He is saying that:
the Russian workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers.
the German workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers.
the British workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers.

SO:
the Afghan workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers.
the US workers should be for the revolutionary defeat of their own reactionary rulers. ?

i perfectly understand what do you mean, but the defeat of the us in afghanistan and iraq will not mean the end of the reactionary ruler, they will just be replaced by other reactionaries and the game will still be the same. Just beccause a group fight imperialism, it dosnt make it less reactionary.

dont get me wrong, the afghani have the right to defend themselves, i dont contest that, and if they want to join the taleban and put a reactionary in power, its their right too, but dont ask me to support this kind of initiative just for the sake of anti-imperialism.

on the other hand, if there is armed group fighting to put some kind of secular leftist regime in afghanistan, those guy have my full support, absolute fucking ly, that would disturb the system.

[Blake's Baby]

You haven't understood. The Afghan working class is fighting to overthrow the pro-western or pro-theocratic gangs (all of them), and you're working to overthrow the USA. Where's the problem?

[danyboy27]

You haven't understood. The Afghan working class is fighting to overthrow the pro-western or pro-theocratic gangs (all of them), and you're working to overthrow the USA. Where's the problem?

i really do praise that, if the afghani want to overthrow their working class i fully support them, but the taleban dosnt want that, so i support the afghan working class , but not the taleban.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, yeah, the Taleban are one of the gangs the Afghan working class must overthrow. Just as you must overthrow the American, or, as it may be given that you're in Quebec, Canadian state (including the Quebequois borgeois-nationalist seperatists).

meanwhile I'll get on with fomenting the end of British capitalism. Hurrah!

[danyboy27]

Well, yeah, the Taleban are one of the gangs the Afghan working class must overthrow. Just as you must overthrow the American, or, as it may be given that you're in Quebec, Canadian state (including the Quebequois borgeois-nationalist seperatists).

meanwhile I'll get on with fomenting the end of British capitalism. Hurrah!

Well, we obviously agree, so what the problem with what i am saying?

[Starport]

Well, we obviously agree, so what the problem with what i am saying?

Thanks for the debate. Lack of time stops me replying properly now, however do you know anything of this and do you have any views?

http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/canadian_rev.html

[danyboy27]

Thanks for the debate. Lack of time stops me replying properly now, however do you know anything of this and do you have any views?

http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/canadian_rev.html

i am aware of this kind of group, and even tho i have serious reserve concerning maoism, things are so messed up in afghanistan right now, i doubt they could actually make things worst, so yea, you can say i ''support'' them.

dont be mistaken, i dont usually support maoist, except in rare, shit hit the fan situation.

[Starport]

For the people here who support imperialist forces against the Taliban, you are on the side of reaction whether you intended it to or not.

The point is that the entire world is run by international finance capital and its governments, armies, thugs, and not forgetting its mind numbing ‘entertainment’ industry, trumped up religions, academic conformity, and general bought-and-paid-for ‘free media’ propagandists.
These dominant influences together with its contradictions (its crisis nature and the revolutionary working class) affect everything, everything including the movement of every brain cell, attitude, and opinion.

Capitalist popular culture pretends to be ‘just’, exactly because there is no justice, except at some superficial and ultimately temporary level. We are encouraged to think that the ‘justice’, ‘common sense’ and ‘fairness’, that is pretended at by our rulers, is the same as that which most workers want and expect in their dealings with each other. Well it’s not, and if you have been duped into thinking this then you have a lot yet to learn or remain reactionaries.

As for this constant refrain about ‘support’ for a) imperialism b)Taliban c)Maoists d) Stalinists etc,.
Many of the arguments read like people arguing over the contestants in a ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ contest, weighing up the pros and cons of the contestants before casing a vote in ‘support’ of one or the other. It is not our job as revolutionary socialists to ‘support’ any of them in this way, like some dreamy passive moralising onlookers, as though we are not part-and-parcel of the imperialist world order and like everyone else, (whether they know it or not) objectively (consciously or not)either on the reactionary side or the revolutionary side.

The divisions ‘within’ this crisis ridden imperialist world order are there, and the job of the conscious revolutionary socialist element is to exploit those divisions by exposing, and where possible, attacking the dominant side. We do not have to ‘support’ anything but our revolutionary socialist agenda (attacking imperialism) in the best way we can.

[Starport]

The attempt, by the British wing of the imperialist coalition, to stamp its authority on the globe has hit another major setback and there are more on the way. US 'surge' will not intimidate the world revolution now clearly building against crisis ridden imperialism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/07/sangin-pullout-british-troops-afghanistan

[danyboy27]

For the people here who support imperialist forces against the Taliban, you are on the side of reaction whether you intended it to or not.

The point is that the entire world is run by international finance capital and its governments, armies, thugs, and not forgetting its mind numbing ‘entertainment’ industry, trumped up religions, academic conformity, and general bought-and-paid-for ‘free media’ propagandists.
These dominant influences together with its contradictions (its crisis nature and the revolutionary working class) affect everything, everything including the movement of every brain cell, attitude, and opinion.

Capitalist popular culture pretends to be ‘just’, exactly because there is no justice, except at some superficial and ultimately temporary level. We are encouraged to think that the ‘justice’, ‘common sense’ and ‘fairness’, that is pretended at by our rulers, is the same as that which most workers want and expect in their dealings with each other. Well it’s not, and if you have been duped into thinking this then you have a lot yet to learn or remain reactionaries.

As for this constant refrain about ‘support’ for a) imperialism b)Taliban c)Maoists d) Stalinists etc,.
Many or the arguments read like people arguing over the contestants in a ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ contest, weighing up the pros and cons of the contestants before casing a vote in ‘support’ of one or the other. It is not our job as revolutionary socialists to ‘support’ any of them in this way, like some dreamy passive moralising onlookers, as though we are not part-and-parcel of the imperialist world order and like everyone else, (whether they know it or not) objectively (consciously or not)either on the reactionary side or the revolutionary side.

The divisions ‘within’ this crisis ridden imperialist world order are there, and the job of the conscious revolutionary socialist element is to exploit those divisions by exposing, and where possible, attacking the dominant side. We do not have to ‘support’ anything but our revolutionary socialist agenda (attacking imperialism) in the best way we can.
nobody support imperialism forces here, you just wasted several minutes for nothing.

[Starport]

nobody support imperialism forces here, you just wasted several minutes for nothing.

Oh yes they do. Check back.

BTW you don't have to 'support' the Maoists but some collaboration developing even better theory on all this might not go amiss given the situation in Afghanistan.

[danyboy27]

Oh yes they do. Check back.

BTW you don't have to 'support' the Maoists but some collaboration developing even better theory on all this might not go amiss given the situation in Afghanistan.

if you come across people who support an imperialism button, just click the report button or sent a pm to an admin.

so far i didnt found nobody on that thread whos support the imperialist forces.

[Starport]

I'm more interested in what the people of Afghanistan want rather than Westerners harping about imperialism from their arm chairs, to be honest. If they want NATO to stay for protection (as all polls indicate), then let it.

danyboy25. If this isn't pro imperialist I don't know what is.

Why are you so jaded?

[Starport]

danyboy25. If this isn't pro imperialist I don't know what is.

Why are you so jaded?

Much of the confusion, personal cynicism, and pessimism prevalent on here is because you will not identify, theorise, expose, and attack imperialist doings as revolutionary socialists should. Lethargic scepticism and individual passivity appears to be the most prevalent attitude in the forum.

[Starport]

if you come across people who support an imperialism button, just click the report button or sent a pm to an admin.

so far i didnt found nobody on that thread whos support the imperialist forces.

This is your answer to finding a pro NATO poster. A bit democratic don't you think?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Its a lost war, and it has been since 2001.

NATO killed 5 of their own Afghan allies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10535099.stm


A spokesman for the Afghan defence ministry condemned the incident, saying it was not the first time Afghan soldiers had died in "friendly fire".

this has been happening during the entirety of the war. they dont care about the Afghans even if they are on their side. they see them as lesser people that only really make up reserves.

[Starport]

Its a lost war, and it has been since 2001.

NATO killed 5 of their own Afghan allies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10535099.stm



this has been happening during the entirety of the war. they dont care about the Afghans even if they are on their side. they see them as lesser people that only really make up reserves.

Exactly!

[Starport]

“The US, says former US envoy to India, Robert Blackwill , would retain the freedom to strike at even civilian Taliban leaders in southern Afghanistan.”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Ex-US-envoy-for-de-facto-partition-of-Afghanistan/articleshow/6141155.cms

What a bunch of vicious ignorant goons this US ruling class are, as if the patrician of the south of Afghanistan and turning every other part of the planet which they can’t control into a Garza would be a ‘solution’ to their corrupt bankrupt rackets.

"When the justice system is corrupt, people have absolutely no recourse," said Candace Roundeaux, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group in Kabul. "The corruption drives the general population directly into the arms of the insurgency."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/07/201078124118415689.html

The US and British working class are about the face the same kind of ‘free market’ justice and welfare system themselves before long.

[Starport]

Another own goal for US war propaganda. Exposure of the Nazi attitudes embedded in US military thinking will only deepen resistance, among the worlds masses, to the "shock and awe" imperialist agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkXtWwNDSdA

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/its-fun-to-kill-in-afghanistan-says-top-us-commander-2023155

It's fun to kill in Afghanistan, says top US commander
By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent
Saturday, 10 July 2010SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE
AP
General James Mattis: a clip of his speech is being shown throughout the Muslim world

The US military, still recovering from the shock of the sacking of General Stanley McChrystal, its top commander in Afghanistan – is facing fresh problems over revelations that another top commander declared that it was "fun to shoot people" in Afghanistan.

A video of General James Mattis making his comments was yesterday spreading through the Muslim world at a fraught time in Afghanistan for the US and it's Western allies. General Mattis has been named as successor to General David Petreaus as head of US Central Command. General Petraeus is moving to Afghanistan after McChrystal's sacking over derogatory remarks made about President Obama to Rolling Stone magazine. But General Mattis has yet to be confirmed by the US Senate. The general led the controversial US military assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004.

The comments which have come back to haunt him were made at a leadership seminar in 2005. He said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know it's a helluva hoot. I'll be right up front with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you get guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil ... guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Related articles

[robbo203]

Yes but it is the effect that military setbacks are having on the imperialist centres is what is so useful because it demonstrates to everyone that the mighty war lords of imperialism are vulnerable to a concerted offensive. It demonstrates to the workers of the US and Britain that their ruling class can be defeated!


What tosh. This is so incredibly naive as has been pointed by others. To imagine that US and British workers on learning of the military setbacks of their respective governments in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere are somehow going to infer from this that these governments are vulnerable after all and we can now go ahead with a revolution is utterly childish IMO.

Most of these workers probably identify with the interests of their respective governments and would view any such setbacks in negative terms, reinforcing their support for their government. Insofar as they are critical, that is not with any view of "revolution" in mind but becuase they dont see it as being in the so called "national interest" to prosecute military campaigns of this sort abroad. Overwhemingly - and sadly - they still see the issue is nationalist terms not revolutionary terms.

I question that they even see it as defeat for the ruling class as such. The roll call of the slain soldiers, week in and week out, is really a matter of (overwhemlingly) working class individuals dressed up in uniform who have been killed. Much of the objection to wars like the one in Afghanistan arises from the fact that the objectors dont see why "our boys" should be fighting to prop up some "foreign" regime or because "our boys" have not been adequately equipped by "our government" to deal with the insurgents. Its got fuck all to do with thoughts of a revolutionary transformation of society.

Such a transformation presupposes the conscious desire for a genuine alternative to capitalism. At the level of individuals, opposition to war "might" prompt a searching around for some explanation as to why wars break out in the first place but it would be mechanistic in the extreme to suggest that this leads us inevitably towards a revolutuionary outlook.

What I object to, above all, is the implication that military setbacks for the US/UK ruling class are somehow "good for revolution" becuase they signifiy weakness which the workers will then sniff out, inducing them to take up arms against this ruling class. This seems to be what you are saying if I am not mistaken - that what we need to do is take up armed struggle against our ruling class while they are in a supposedly weakened state.

If that is what you are suggesting then I would say to you that this is a recipe for mass suicide. It would be folly on a grand scale. And even if there was the slight chance that the workers were successful it would simply means the change of one government for another, albeit one supposedly representing the interests of the workers. You can be pretty sure that a genuine revolution - a change in the economic basis of society - had not happened.

A strategy based on violence necessitates an authoritarian power structure and hence the perpetuation of class society

[A.J.]

^ I have to say this is most sanctrimonious, pompous and above all else moronic drivel I have perhaps ever read. But anyway, just a couple of points...


What tosh. This is so incredibly naive as has been pointed by others. To imagine that US and British workers on learning of the military setbacks of their respective governments in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere are somehow going to infer from this that these governments are vulnerable after all and we can now go ahead with a revolution is utterly childish IMO.

Most of these workers probably identify with the interests of their respective governments and would view any such setbacks in negative terms, reinforcing their support for their government. Insofar as they are critical, that is not with any view of "revolution" in mind but becuase they dont see it as being in the so called "national interest" to prosecute military campaigns of this sort abroad. Overwhemingly - and sadly - they still see the issue is nationalist terms not revolutionary terms.

These "workers" you talk of. Are they class conscious workers or workers in general?
I think you'll find that Communists tend to direct their propaganda towards the advanced worker not the 'average' or 'ordinary' worker, whoever they are. The former not tending to identify their interests with their 'own' ruling class.



I question that they even see it as defeat for the ruling class as such. The roll call of the slain soldiers, week in and week out, is really a matter of (overwhemlingly) working class individuals dressed up in uniform who have been killed. Much of the objection to wars like the one in Afghanistan arises from the fact that the objectors dont see why "our boys" should be fighting to prop up some "foreign" regime or because "our boys" have not been adequately equipped by "our government" to deal with the insurgents. Its got fuck all to do with thoughts of a revolutionary transformation of society.


Here's a news flash for you: Marxists don't consider the armed forces personnel of the bourgeois state as being proletarian.


Such a transformation presupposes the conscious desire for a genuine alternative to capitalism. At the level of individuals, opposition to war "might" prompt a searching around for some explanation as to why wars break out in the first place but it would be mechanistic in the extreme to suggest that this leads us inevitably towards a revolutuionary outlook.

What I object to, above all, is the implication that military setbacks for the US/UK ruling class are somehow "good for revolution" becuase they signifiy weakness which the workers will then sniff out, inducing them to take up arms against this ruling class. This seems to be what you are saying if I am not mistaken - that what we need to do is take up armed struggle against our ruling class while they are in a supposedly weakened state.

The weakening of the world system of imperialism is objectively progressive regardless of whether "the workers"(?) are consciously aware of it or not.


A strategy based on violence necessitates an authoritarian power structure and hence the perpetuation of class society

You're a hippy.

[robbo203]

^ I have to say this is most sanctrimonious, pompous and above all else moronic drivel I have perhaps ever read. But anyway, just a couple of points

These "workers" you talk of. Are they class conscious workers or workers in general?
I think you'll find that Communists tend to direct their propaganda towards the advanced worker not the 'average' or 'ordinary' worker, whoever they are. The former not tending to identify their interests with their 'own' ruling class.....

If you werent stuck so far up your own arse you might have seen I was responding directly to the point that It demonstrates to the workers of the US and Britain that their ruling class can be defeated. Cant see any mention there of the "advanced workers", can you? But, hey!, why let a little inconvenient fact get in the way of self indulgently venting one's spleen. Twat.


But in any case how the hell are you going to carry out a revolution without the mass of workers including those you patronisingly call the "ordinary" or "average" worker. No, wait, let me guess - you subscribe to the vanguardist theory of revolution I imagine?


^

Here's a news flash for you: Marxists don't consider the armed forces personnel of the bourgeois state as being proletarian.
.

Well here's flash for you, sunshine. The armed forces are overwhelmingly workers in uniform unless of course you imagine "our boys" in Afghanistan and elsewhere are really just the bored offspring of the capitalist class on the lookout for a bit of adventure and purpose in their lives. :laugh::laugh:

Why the fuck do you think the army tends to concentrate its recruiting drives in run down working class areas scarred by high unemployment, eh? And then you have the gall to pompously get on your soapbox and tell me what Marxist do or dont "consider".

[Starport]

The Nazi leadership of the USA (“Its fun to kill in Afghanistan,” says top US commander General James Mattis), are finding it increasingly difficult to explain their inability to prevent or control the growing hostility by anti-imperialist resistance to it’s economic crisis fuelled aggression against the poor ‘upstart’ regions of the world like South America, North Africa and the middle east.

However the fascist blitzkrieg mentality to ("impose this overwhelming level of ‘Shock and Awe’ against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on ) [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels." National Defence University of the United States.1996,) is not working in Afghanistan, is it?

So why not simply explain this to anyone who will listen or read about it. What is the problem?

It’s easy to explain failed Imperialist genocide foreign policy, like this:
“The US would retain the freedom to strike at even civilian Taliban leaders in southern Afghanistan.” says former US envoy to India, Robert Blackwill.

[Starport]

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Afghanistan/Images/22.jpg

A busted Nazi flush. US special forces and Mohamed Karzai.

[Starport]

This has retreat and defeat written all over it but the 'left' haven't caught on to it yet.

"Sangin has been a strategic failure. We are not having the desired effect there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/06/sangin-troop-withdrawal-taliban-undefeated

"It's very hard to dominate without a massive amount of manpower. All the locals there are pro-Taliban"

"We have paid an incredibly high price in Sangin. If you lose one soldier in one place, that's already too high a price to pay, but an awful lot of blood has been shed. So in that sense, I am pleased we will be leaving.”

"Sangin has been a strategic failure. We are not having the desired effect there."

[Starport]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1293460/Giant-unmanned-airships-patrol-Afghanistan-skies-weeks-time.html

Will this 'Peeping Tom' win over harts and minds for some dynamic "nation building" or will it induce even more contempt and loathing among the poor masses in Afghanistan? Gaza? Detroit? Liverpool?

Oh BTW - Last month a Black Hawk helicopter, on a mission to rescue wounded British soldiers, was shot down outside Sangin.

[Starport]

It appearers that the tough talk from the US generals (“Its fun to kill in Afghanistan,” says top US commander General James Mattis) will be seen as a sick jock by the forces and their families. The troops will need to grow a third eye in their asses to continue fighting with the Afghan army.

"BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said this latest tragedy will again intensify debate over the human costs of the mission in Afghanistan - and over whether the West's exit strategy, which relies on training the Afghan army and police, can hope to succeed."

"We have sacrificed greatly together and we must ensure the trust between our forces remains solid in order to defeat our common enemies
Gen David PetraeuNATO commander, Afghanista

"Maj Gen Patrick Cordingley, a former commander in the first Gulf War, told the BBC feelings would be "running high" over the next few days, "not only among the soldiers involved but also in this country, where people are going to continue to ask the question 'Is it all worthwhile?'"



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/13/rogue-solder-killing-afghanistan

[Starport]

"But on top of all the other setbacks, including a mounting death toll from Taliban gunfire and improvised explosive devices, and the recent decision to pull British troops out of Sangin, they are a serious blow which takes on an added significance." Guardian.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/7887787/Three-British-troops-killed-by-Afghan-soldier.html



http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100711/FOREIGN/707109882/1002

[empiredestoryer]

any defeat of evil is good for the world