Taliban kills foreign aid workers

[The Vegan Marxist]

As Communists, we must always defend ourselves against imperialism, but as proletarians, this is why we must always defend ourselves against counterrevolutionary groups such as the Taliban.

Taliban kills foreign aid workers
SATURDAY, AUGUST 07, 2010

The Taliban has said it shot dead eight foreign aid workers in a remote northern region of Afghanistan, accusing them of being “Christian missionaries”.

“Yesterday at around 8am, one of our patrols confronted a group of foreigners. They were Christian missionaries and we killed them all,” Zabihulla Mujahed, a spokesman for the Taliban movement, said on Saturday.

“They were carrying Persian language bibles, a satellite-tracking device and maps,” he said.

The bullet-riddled bodies of five men, all Americans, and three women, an American, a German and a Briton, were found in the northeastern province of Badakhshan on Friday, the provincial police chief said.

Mujahed said the group was lost and the victims were killed as they tried to escape.

Health workers

Dirk Frans, the director of the the International Assistance Mission charity, told The Associated Press news that the group was returning to Kabul from an eye facility in Nuristan province when they were killed.

“This tragedy negatively impacts our ability to continue serving the Afghan people as IAM has been doing since 1966,” a statement released by the nonprofit Christian organisation which provides healthcare services said.

“We hope it will not stop our work that benefits over a quarter of a million Afghans each year.”

IAM says it provides the majority of eye care available to Afghans, running eye hospitals in Kabul, Herat, Mazar and Kandahar.

Al Jazeera’s James Bays, reporting from Kabul, said the area where the bodies were found was not considered one of the more dangerous places in Afghanistan, and that some of the workers had extensive experience with the country and its languages.

That means the killings are even likelier to make many of the non-govermental organisation working in the country reassess their operations, Bays said.

“I am sure it will limit some operations that have been benefitting the people of Afghanistan,” he said.

Afghan survivor

General Agha Noor Kemtuz, the provincial police chief, said a third Afghan man, who had been travelling with the group, survived.

“He told me he was shouting and reciting the holy Quran and saying ‘I am Muslim. Don’t kill me’,” Kemtuz said.

Kemtuz said the survivor told him that the group, which had been travelling in Panjshir, Nuristan and Badakhshan provinces, were surrounded by armed men and then attacked.

He speculated that robbery could have been a motive in the killings in the remote Kuran Wa Munjan district.

“We couldn’t find any passports or anything,” he said. “Nothing was left behind.”

It was unclear what the group had been doing in the forested area away from main routes through the province.

“Before their travel we warned them not to tour near jungles in Nuristan but they said they were doctors and no one was going to hurt them,” Kemtuz said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/08/20108784511663351.html

[Steve_j]

As Communists, we must always defend ourselves against imperialism, but as proletarians, this is why we must always defend ourselves against counterrevolutionary groups such as the Taliban.

Whilst i in no way condone the taliban, is this a joke?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Whilst i in no way condone the taliban, is this a joke?

No, the Taliban must not be supported by the working class. I see no reason why we should support them.

[AK]

Whilst i in no way condone the taliban, is this a joke?
You're saying we shouldn't oppose such reactionary organisations?

[NGNM85]

Another illustration of the value of religious piety.

[Adi Shankara]

The Taliban are what you get when you cross unchallenged religious fanaticism with Fascism, except instead of racial nationalism, it becomes religious nationalism.

Personally, I quite enjoy it when politics stay out of religion.

[DragonQuestWes]

This just makes the Taliban just as fascist and/or barbaric as the IDF when they killed humanitarian aid workers of the coast of Gaza and the U.S. military occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

What does it actually mean to "support" the Taliban?

Does that mean saying "Yeah, dude, I support the Taliban" when your dorm buddy poses the question? How could any leftist on this site or anywhere else outside of Afghanistan support the Taliban?

The question of supporting or opposing the Taliban is meaningless for any one of us, unless it's posed as cover for determining a stance regarding the flip side of the coin -- supporting U.S. imperialism in the region.

A principled Afghan leftist supports neither the U.S. nor the Taliban in the Afghan conflict for the same reasons that a principled U.S. leftist does not support the Democrats over the Republicans in 2012.

Logistically, though, the U.S. leftist has no more say in "supporting the Taliban" in Afghanistan than the Afghan leftist has a say in supporting the Democrats or the Republicans over in the U.S.

I fail to see what might be the point of your preamble.

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50422528.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A145A8D52A8CADD9DF0883E68D3BF2A8078 CDC684E32030DE77B01E70F2B3269972

[Dimentio]

In before some idiot claims that the aid workers were imperialist stooges.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

He speculated that robbery could have been a motive in the killings in the remote Kuran Wa Munjan district

This is probably the case, obviously the Taliban are going to claim that they killed foreigners at any given opportunity.

It's surprising to see marxist leninists being against the Taliban though. They overthrew the Mujahideen and even accepted some ex-Soviet fighters into their ranks. Of course, I am not a marxist leninist.

Anyway, steve_j has a point because defence against imperialism means not supporting any other kind of imperialism, unfortunately most of the left does not acknowledge this. And quite ironically, the left has supported those such as Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot, both of whom are far, far worse than the Taliban regarding the atrocities they've committed. Funny isnt it?

[NGNM85]

A principled Afghan leftist supports neither the U.S. nor the Taliban in the Afghan conflict for the same reasons that a principled U.S. leftist does not support the Democrats over the Republicans in 2012.

"Support" is sort of vague and open to interpretation. However, a 'principled leftist' would very likely vote for the Democrats in 2012 because a Republican administration would be worse for the working class.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

"Support" is sort of vague and open to interpretation.

That's the whole point of my response to the supposed dilemma. What were the possible interpretations relevant to the question that you had in mind?


However, a 'principled leftist' would very likely vote for the Democrats in 2012 because a Republican administration would be worse for the working class.

Great. You may want to work on the Obama campaign. The least you could to is tell your friends to vote Democrat when explaining Marxism or laying out the basics of the ongoing war and capitalist exploitation.

The CPUSA shares your views. Join them at http://www.cpusa.org/join-us/; dues are non-tax-deductible.

[mikelepore]

I think a principled leftist would say this:

"Even where there is no prospect whatever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces and to lay before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be bribed by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and giving the reactionaries the possibility of victory."

Marx and Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, 1850

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

[Lenina Rosenweg]

"Support" is sort of vague and open to interpretation. However, a 'principled leftist' would very likely vote for the Democrats in 2012 because a Republican administration would be worse for the working class.

The view of communists and anarchists is that both US parties are that of the enemy. The Republicans are obviously vile but the Dems are actually far more insidious. The Dems are "plan B" of the ruling class. Their purpose is to co-opt and neutralize dissent or unrest so it will not threaten the system.Their are many many examples of this, the most recent one being Obama's bailout to the corrupt but very powerful insurance industry.

A principled leftist believes in an independent role for the working class, not tied to bourgeois parties. Obama is just as much our enemy as Bush was. I'm not a PLP supporter but they have a button I used to wear a few years ago at my workplace (dominated by liberals), "Its not Bush, its capitalism"

[Revy]

And quite ironically, the left has supported those such as Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot, both of whom are far, far worse than the Taliban regarding the atrocities they've committed. Funny isnt it?

Some naive segments of the left supported (or at least defended) Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot, but making such a statement about the entire revolutionary left is ridiculous.



"Support" is sort of vague and open to interpretation. However, a 'principled leftist' would very likely vote for the Democrats in 2012 because a Republican administration would be worse for the working class.

This is a false strategy. It would make sense if there were no left alternatives to the Democrats. But in the US there are always socialist parties running candidates for President. Our goal should be to increase the presence of revolutionary ideas. We have had Obama for 1 and a half years but has this boosted socialism? Not really.

[Steve_j]

You're saying we shouldn't oppose such reactionary organisations?

No ofcourse not.


No, the Taliban must not be supported by the working class. I see no reason why we should support them.

Yes i agree, im not suggesting we should.

Perhaps you simply used this example to highlight your argument because it is current, but i found it slightly confusing and possibly a little Eurocentric.

Of all the atrocious and antiworkerist things the taliban have done to the local population, 8 dead westerners is be no means significant.

[Andropov]

This just makes the Taliban just as fascist and/or barbaric as the IDF when they killed humanitarian aid workers of the coast of Gaza and the U.S. military occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.
No it clearly doesnt.
The Taliban are the reaction, US Imperialism is the cause.
Cause and effect.

[AK]

No it clearly doesnt.
The Taliban are the reaction, US Imperialism is the cause.
Cause and effect.
We were talking about barbarity, not whether one atrocity was a reaction and one was imperialist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

We should support the murder of aid workers by fanatic religious reactionaries in the name of anti-imperialism. :rolleyes:

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Some naive segments of the left supported (or at least defended) Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot, but making such a statement about the entire revolutionary left is ridiculous.

By left I refer to the 'leftist' left, the so-called anti imperialists, the so-called socialists. There are a lot of anarchists, some trots and of course left-communists who have correctly repudiated all of these reactionary groups.

[DragonQuestWes]

No it clearly doesnt.
The Taliban are the reaction, US Imperialism is the cause.
Cause and effect.

While it is true that US Imperialism sparks all of this, it doesn't change the fact that the Taliban killed humanitarian workers.

Therefore it makes the Taliban just as bad as the Imperialists, at least in this case.

[RED DAVE]

This issue of support or nonsupport for the Taliban is a bogus one. We support the unconditional withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan.

Now, should this happen, it will probably lead to the victory of the Taliban.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

This issue of support or nonsupport for the Taliban is a bogus one. We support the unconditional withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan.

Now, should this happen, it will probably lead to the victory of the Taliban.

RED DAVE

Why not a victory for the oppressed, for the working class, for it's a step towards their liberation? From there, we can then start a direct resistance against the Taliban.

[Magón]

Why not a victory for the oppressed, for the working class, for it's a step towards their liberation? From there, we can then start a direct resistance against the Taliban.

Does it have to be through armed conflict though? Because there are several times in history, where Imperialism has tried it through armed conflict, and lost every time against the opposing Afghan forces that are against them. You can't fight in Afghanistan, and expect to win on a political level if the Afghan politics are so intertwined with their religion.

In a way, you're just trading one Imperialist Movement for another Imperialist Movement, and frankly it won't work how ever many times you try it. You can't beat a religious dispute that's been going on for generations upon generations, and goes even farther back than any Western would know or could comprehend. Or any Western Leftist Ideology goes.

I'm sure though, that if you did it through food/water aid, without the intention of armed conflict, you could beat the Taliban possibly at providing food to their people which would gain you major points with the people. Of course, the Taliban could take it up and just kill your aid workers like they did these four?

[RED DAVE]

I'm sure though, that if you did it through food/water aid, without the intention of armed conflict, you could beat the Taliban possibly at providing food to their people which would gain you major points with the people. Of course, the Taliban could take it up and just kill your aid workers like they did these four?Who is "you"? Do you mean the imperialists?

RED DAVE

[Magón]

Who is "you"? Do you mean the imperialists?

RED DAVE

Uh, no, they've already proved they can't. I meant Leftists.

[AK]

Why not a victory for the oppressed, for the working class, for it's a step towards their liberation? From there, we can then start a direct resistance against the Taliban.
Funny how no ML ever takes this logical stance on the DPRK.

[NGNM85]

That's the whole point of my response to the supposed dilemma. What were the possible interpretations relevant to the question that you had in mind?

"Support' is just sort of broad and vague. I have voted for politicians I don't really like very much, because the opposition was even worse. Is that 'support', in a very broad and literal sense, yes, but that's stretching the word to the limit.


Great. You may want to work on the Obama campaign. The least you could to is tell your friends to vote Democrat when explaining Marxism or laying out the basics of the ongoing war and capitalist exploitation.

The CPUSA shares your views. Join them at http://www.cpusa.org/join-us/ (http://www.cpusa.org/join-us/); dues are non-tax-deductible.

See, now you're just going completely off the rails. I don't want anything to do with CPUSA, and I have absolutely no interest in participating in the Obama campaign, nor could anything I said be justifiably interpreted that way.


The view of communists and anarchists is that both US parties are that of the enemy.

Please, please,……please. Don’t do that. Don’t tell me what I believe. You are not my official representative. You can, however, ask me what I believe.



The Republicans are obviously vile but the Dems are actually far more insidious. The Dems are "plan B" of the ruling class. Their purpose is to co-opt and neutralize dissent or unrest so it will not threaten the system.

This is a really bad and insidious idea. One of the fundamentals of being an Anarchist is a moral outrage, a concern for the working class, it’s sort of important. If you actually care you make the decision that results in the greatest benefit, or, at least, the least harm. What you’re saying, in effect, is the Democrats are bad because they don’t sufficiently abuse the working class, inspiring greater popular unrest, therefore, they have less potential to inspire revolution. This attitude does not say; “I care about the working class.”, it says “Fuck the working class.”

[The Vegan Marxist]

Funny how no ML ever takes this logical stance on the DPRK.

If you're trying to compare the DPRK with the Taliban, then you're sadly confused.

[Obs]

Funny how no ML ever takes this logical stance on the DPRK.
'Scuse me?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

"Support' is just sort of broad and vague. I have voted for politicians I don't really like very much, because the opposition was even worse. Is that 'support', in a very broad and literal sense, yes, but that's stretching the word to the limit.


But that is an irrelevant kind of "support", since we are not going to vote either for the Taliban or against them.

I also doubt that anyone in RevLeft's going to donate to the Taliban, join their forces, or even defend their views on policy or whatever.

And short of that, there is no real way for us to "support" the Taliban at all.



See, now you're just going completely off the rails. I don't want anything to do with CPUSA, and I have absolutely no interest in participating in the Obama campaign, nor could anything I said be justifiably interpreted that way.


Didn't mean to misinterpret. Signing up for the Webbist CPUSA thing was a bit of a tease, sure. As for the rest, I'm just extrapolating from how I'm interpreting your words. If you voting Dem is so progressive (because the GOP is so much worse), what's wrong with taking part in their campaigns?

[AK]

If you're trying to compare the DPRK with the Taliban, then you're sadly confused.

'Scuse me?
Fuck all oppressors, liberate the working class? I thought that was part of every communist's goals. But let's not drag this out into yet another DPRK thread (which I seem to have done, oh well).

[Soviet dude]

I support the Taliban, in so much as I support any organization resisting US imperialism in their country. Like it or not, the Taliban is the one fighting US imperialism on the ground, while the "Left" in Afghanistan almost universally welcomed the invasion of their country. The "Left" in Afghanistan will be discredited amongst the population for at least a generation.

And I'm sorry, I'm not gonna cry a river for some religious nut-job aid worker who was probably killed because he went to a dangerous place where people would naturally be suspicious of him, like an idiot. I'm surprised you would have a response like this to the latest bit of mainstream media babble, Vegan, after posting that Gowans article. Allow me to quote it again for you, in case you didn't read it closely the first time:


Some of these people thought they were being clever. If they said (quite truthfully though irrelevantly) that they hated Saddam Hussein because he was a dictator, they could take the dictator-lover charge off the table, and focus public attention on US actions. But all they did was help to give heart to those seeking a silver lining in the dark cloud of impending war. “The war might be conducted for the wrong reasons,” rationalized the silver lining seekers, “but at least some good will come of it. The world will be rid of a vicious dictator.”

I suggest you read those words carefully, Vegan.

[NGNM85]

But that is an irrelevant kind of "support", since we are not going to vote either for the Taliban or against them.

I also doubt that anyone in RevLeft's going to donate to the Taliban, join their forces, or even defend their views on policy or whatever.

And short of that, there is no real way for us to "support" the Taliban at all.

I think we got our wires crossed. I wasn't talking about the Taliban, so, I guess we can just drop that I guess I misinterpreted.



Didn't mean to misinterpret. Signing up for the Webbist CPUSA thing was a bit of a tease, sure. As for the rest, I'm just extrapolating from how I'm interpreting your words. If you voting Dem is so progressive (because the GOP is so much worse), what's wrong with taking part in their campaigns?

I didn't, and wouldn't say it's necessarily progressive in any substantial way, in itself. However, it is more humane. There's a fairly recent Princeton study, which should surprise nobody, of the last few decades, that the working class does better under Democrat administrations.

I have a huge problem with people who think that the misery of the working class is only meaningful to the extent they can politically capitalize on it. That's a really morally atrocious outlook. Their suffering matters, period.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I have a huge problem with people who think that the misery of the working class is only meaningful to the extent they can politically capitalize on it. That's a really morally atrocious outlook. Their suffering matters, period.

Oh, I do think that all the suffering matters. You see, I'm not a politician and therefore cannot "capitalize" in any way on the misery of the working class.

However, I'm totally against supporting a corporate-funded clique that's as imperialist as the GOP. Nor will I cast my vote for a president who pats Netanhyahu on the back while bombing Afghan and Iraqi kids to smithereens.

I also think that working on an actual progressive movement would be the surest antidote to many problems in the long run, and because all things have to start out somewhere -- and we keep getting evil because we are supporting it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I support the Taliban, in so much as I support any organization resisting US imperialism in their country. Like it or not, the Taliban is the one fighting US imperialism on the ground, while the "Left" in Afghanistan almost universally welcomed the invasion of their country. The "Left" in Afghanistan will be discredited amongst the population for at least a generation.

And I'm sorry, I'm not gonna cry a river for some religious nut-job aid worker who was probably killed because he went to a dangerous place where people would naturally be suspicious of him, like an idiot. I'm surprised you would have a response like this to the latest bit of mainstream media babble, Vegan, after posting that Gowans article. Allow me to quote it again for you, in case you didn't read it closely the first time:



I suggest you read those words carefully, Vegan.

Gowans is a great comrade who know's what he's talking about, but he's also directly against the Taliban as well. How about including that? I posted an article in which we should defend the working class against an enemy to them, whether it's the US or a reactionary group like the Taliban. Yes, when it comes the two, I'd rather see the Taliban ruling rather than the US, but when it comes to who I want to be the true liberators, it's the working class, not the Taliban.

[NGNM85]

Oh, I do think that all the suffering matters. You see, I'm not a politician and therefore cannot "capitalize" in any way on the misery of the working class.

However, I'm totally against supporting a corporate-funded clique that's as imperialist as the GOP. Nor will I cast my vote for a president who pats Netanhyahu on the back while bombing Afghan and Iraqi kids to smithereens.

I also think that working on an actual progressive movement would be the surest antidote to many problems in the long run, and because all things have to start out somewhere -- and we keep getting evil because we are supporting it.

Again, I think the word 'support' is being stretched to it's limits. More to the point, I don't see what valuable, sound tactical alternative you're providing. Are you suggesting voting for third party candidates like Nader? (Incidentally, I do vote Green/Socialist in elections where the GOP is predicted to lose.) I think, if anything, that just ends up helping the GOP, it splits the left which essentially gives them more votes. Similarly, not voting at all is totally abdicating any responsibility. I mean, if you have some other constructive idea, I'm all ears.

[Obs]

Fuck all oppressors, liberate the working class? I thought that was part of every communist's goals. But let's not drag this out into yet another DPRK thread (which I seem to have done, oh well).
I think you misunderstood me.

[AK]

I think you misunderstood me.
I think I'm very confused :blink:

[Obs]

I think I'm very confused :blink:
I have the same attitude towards the DPRK as I do towards Afghanistan under the Taliban, and I'm an ML according to most people I've explained my views to.

[AK]

I have the same attitude towards the DPRK as I do towards Afghanistan under the Taliban, and I'm an ML according to most people I've explained my views to.
I swear you were a leftcom last time I checked. Oh well.

[RadioRaheem84]

However, a 'principled leftist' would very likely vote for the Democrats in 2012 because a Republican administration would be worse for the working class. God Damn, I swear! And then you get upset when I say call you a liberal.

Yeah, lets vote for the GOP-Lite. That's what a principled leftist would do.

Because a true leftist shows his true leftist principles by voting right. :rolleyes:

[dearest chuck]

does afghanistan even have a "working class" or are y'all just pretending it does

[Communist Guy]

Well, we all know the Taliban are a bunch of lunatics.

They claim to be Muslim and completely corrupt Islam.

Its as if they're trying to make people hate Muslims and not want to convert.

I think we should be against this movement, not only as communists or as members of the proletariat but as humans.

[dearest chuck]

hmm, maybe you're the lunatic for thinking we as a species all need to unite, not to solve world hunger or global warming or anything like that, but to support the afghan warlords and their nato patrons.

[Communist Guy]

hmm, maybe you're the lunatic for thinking we as a species all need to unite, not to solve world hunger or global warming or anything like that, but to support the afghan warlords and their nato patrons.

You misunderstand me. I do not support any of those things. I am saying we should unite to stop this barbarity. We should unite for democracy, for human rights, for the rights of women etc.

Now, I would much rather live in a famine or in a polluted world than be a woman living there, wouldn't you?

I cannot see how as a human being anyone can support this system.

And please, no need for insults. I am sure we can all discuss this maturely without need for such insults.

[NGNM85]

God Damn, I swear! And then you get upset when I say call you a liberal.

Yeah, lets vote for the GOP-Lite. That's what a principled leftist would do.

Because a true leftist shows his true leftist principles by voting right. :rolleyes:

This is a characteristic example of one-dimensional thinking. I sort of take it for granted any real, principled Leftist actually gives a shit about people besides themselves, although there are a number here who take a different position. Now, simply not participating in politics changes nothing, it's also totally irresponsible. For example, I voted for John Kerry because I was repulsed by the Bush administration and what they were doing to this country, and to other countries, so I voted against him, I voted for the alternative. That does not mean I like the alterbative, or that I have any illusions about them, nor does it negate other forms of political action. It's merely consistent.

You don't understand the fundamental concepts of "Left" and "Right."

[AK]

does afghanistan even have a "working class" or are y'all just pretending it does
Quoted because this is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard on Revleft.

[durhamleft]

The Taliban are fucking nutters.

[Andropov]

We were talking about barbarity, not whether one atrocity was a reaction and one was imperialist.
Talking about "barbarity"?
Such emotive nonsense that shouldnt used anywhere near a leftist forum.
Marxism is not about bourgeois moralising about who is "morally right" and who is "morally wrong" or who is "barbaric" or who is "civilised" or other such nonsense.
Its about analysing the context and coming to a rational conclusion based on Marxism, not moralising.
Throwing around emotive drivel such as that is truely idiotic.
Its akin to refering to Hitler and the NAZI's as "evil", when using emotive labels like that it relegates the understanding of the material conditions which helped create these people and these contexts.
Its childish and it only serves to perpetuate the recourance of these reactionarys since we will no longer analyse the material conditions which shaped these people and place it on anomlys such as "evil people" or in your case "barbaric people".
Utter nonsense.

[AK]

Talking about "barbarity"?
Such emotive nonsense that shouldnt used anywhere near a leftist forum.
Originally Posted by DragonQuestWes http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1826582#post1826582)
This just makes the Taliban just as fascist and/or barbaric as the IDF when they killed humanitarian aid workers of the coast of Gaza and the U.S. military occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.


No it clearly doesnt.
The Taliban are the reaction, US Imperialism is the cause.
Cause and effect.
Well, from your reply I had gotten the idea that you disagreed with the underlined portion of that post - and therefore might be in a position to claim that the IDF is more barbaric than the Taliban.

[Andropov]

Well, from your reply I had gotten the idea that you disagreed with the underlined portion of that post - and therefore might be in a position to claim that the IDF is more barbaric than the Taliban.
Like I posted....

The Taliban are the reaction, US Imperialism is the cause.
Cause and effect.

[Devrim]

does afghanistan even have a "working class" or are y'all just pretending it does

Of course Afghanistan has a working class. It is, however, tiny.

Devrim

[RadioRaheem84]

Originally Posted by NGNM85
This is a characteristic example of one-dimensional thinking. I sort of take it for granted any real, principled Leftist actually gives a shit about people besides themselves, although there are a number here who take a different position. Now, simply not participating in politics changes nothing, it's also totally irresponsible. For example, I voted for John Kerry because I was repulsed by the Bush administration and what they were doing to this country, and to other countries, so I voted against him, I voted for the alternative. That does not mean I like the alterbative, or that I have any illusions about them, nor does it negate other forms of political action. It's merely consistent.
Seriously, how much more of this shit are we going to have to put up with? This guy comes in here with an arrogant attitude telling us we're not principled enough because we did not vote right or centre-right, giving him the least benefit of the doubt. He comes in here and tries to school us on how we're not understanding the basics of the "left" "right" spectrum?



Originally Posted by NGNM85
You don't understand the fundamental concepts of "Left" and "Right." Left and Right in the American political context? The idiotic political context that makes rightists like Kerry look like champions of the working class because they look like viable alternatives to extreme right wingers?

I mean what are you trying to say about the fundamentals here? The fundamental is that neither the Dems nor the Republicans care about workers being in control of the means of production. Neither care about the economy meeting societal needs and think that it should remain in the hands of corporate interests. That doesn't make them anywhere near even the fundamentals of what a leftist is supposed to be. They do not share our class analysis.

So again what the fuck are you talking about?

[NGNM85]

Seriously, how much more of this shit are we going to have to put up with? This guy comes in here with an arrogant attitude telling us we're not principled enough because we did not vote right or centre-right, giving him the least benefit of the doubt. He comes in here and tries to school us on how we're not understanding the basics of the "left" "right" spectrum?


Left and Right in the American political context? The idiotic political context that makes rightists like Kerry look like champions of the working class because they look like viable alternatives to extreme right wingers?


Completely dropping out of the political system is pointless, and inconsistent. Again, if you care, you choose the lesser evil. This does not mean succumbing to illusions, nor does it negate other forms of political action. This too-cool-for-school attitude is for trendy sorts who want to sit in cafes and appear to be radical.

Recognizing the state is an illegitimate institution doesn't mean you just wash your hands of everything, in fact, in some instances, it's important to protect it, parts of it. Let me try to make this as simple as humanly possible, Ron Paul 'Libertarians' want to deregulate the financial industry, get rid of the EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc. This would result in substantially less government. However, we should be absolutely against this. One, because Anarchism is based on secular humanism, and such actions would be deeply harmful, especially to the poor, second, because it just puts more power into the hands of monolithic corporations that are even worse. At least the state has mechanisms by which it can be held accountable.

I was specifically talking to you. I think there's some fuzziness around these concepts, but I think they are generally understood, I just don't think you understand them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Completely dropping out of the political system is pointless, and inconsistent. Again, if you care, you choose the lesser evil. This does not mean succumbing to illusions, nor does it negate other forms of political action. This too-cool-for-school attitude is for trendy sorts who want to sit in cafes and appear to be radical.

Recognizing the state is an illegitimate institution doesn't mean you just wash your hands of everything, in fact, in some instances, it's important to protect it, parts of it. Let me try to make this as simple as humanly possible, Ron Paul 'Libertarians' want to deregulate the financial industry, get rid of the EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc. This would result in substantially less government. However, we should be absolutely against this. One, because Anarchism is based on secular humanism, and such actions would be deeply harmful, especially to the poor, second, because it just puts more power into the hands of monolithic corporations that are even worse. At least the state has mechanisms by which it can be held accountable.
This is such a ridiculous distraction from the major issues. First off, there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. The de-industrialization of the US happened under the Carter Administration, not Reagan's like most people believe. The Volcker Shock was the first firing shot. The working class was better of under Nixon than Carter.

Secondly, as Adam Curtis brilliantly pointed out in his doc The Trap, both New Labour Blair and New Democrat Bill Clinton made both the public sector and the private sector much worse off than their predecessors. They introduced technocratic market-efficiency into existing government programs making the programs more difficult to adequately distribute aid. Not to mention Clinton totally "reformed" welfare. For all of Thatcher and Reagans faults they left the programs that they didn't cut in tact whereas Blair and Clinton totally made them inefficient to distribute assistance. Not to mention NAFTA and the biggest period of corporate and banking de-regulation in American history? Clinton packed his cabinet with Wall Street moguls as did Obama. Corporations were given near free reign to plunder the world under Clinton and Blair. Oh and should I mention that the largest bombing campaign on Iraq before Shock and Awe was Operation Desert Fox under Clinton, not to mention the Iraqi Sanctions which Madeline Albright thought was necessary even under the heavy human cost? The support for Yeltsin, the Balkans NATO fiasco, etc. I could go on and on.

See what you're failing to understand, NGN, is that the political structure is heavily dictated by the commanding heights of the economy. Policy matters reflect the wants of business and since the late 70s, it didn't matter whether Republican or Democrat, all had to succumb to corporate interests.

I suggest you read Paul Sweezy and Paul Baran's brilliant book Monopoly Capital and then start reading the follow up articles about Monopoly Finance Capital in the Monthly Review to get a full picture on how whether Dems or Rep, it doesn't make a dimes worth of difference.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08112004.html

Another helpful article by Alex Cockburn^.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dimesworth.html

Great book to counter the silly argument of 'lesser of two evils'.

You're silly to come in here with your moral superiority complex and telling us that "if we cared" we would vote the lesser of two evils.

What the lesser of two evils argument basically boils down to is; there is nothing you can do, abandon your aspiration for a better world and be "realistic".

The Democrats live off of class defeat.

Also, why would you use Ron Paul as an argument? I doubt even half the country would go for his silly ideas. Secondly, he is as much a viable candidate for votes as Nader, and he is a much viable alternative.


I was specifically talking to you. I think there's some fuzziness around these concepts, but I think they are generally understood, I just don't think you understand them. I don't think there is anyone in here who takes the American political spectrum as a serious take on the left/right spectrum. We keep it in context, yes, to not be so confused, but we, at least, I do not take it seriously.

[NGNM85]

This is such a ridiculous distraction from the major issues. First off, there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. The de-industrialization of the US happened under the Carter Administration, not Reagan's like most people believe. The Volcker Shock was the first firing shot. The working class was better of under Nixon than Carter.

There’s a small difference. To quote the Princeton study;

“Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growth
under Democratic and Republican presidents in the post-war U.S. Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality. On average, families at the 95th percentile of the income distribution have experienced identical income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents, while those at the 20th percentile have experienced more than four times as much income growth under Democrats as they have under Republicans. These differences are attributable to partisan differences in unemployment (which has been 30 percent lower under Democratic presidents, on average) and GDP growth (which has been 30 percent higher under Democratic presidents, on average); both unemployment and GDP growth have much stronger effects on income growth at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top. Similar partisan differences appear in the distribution of post-tax income growth of households since 1980, despite the fact that the corresponding pre-tax income growth data for that period show little evidence of partisan differences.”

Here’s the whole thing; http://www.russellsage.org/publications/workingpapers/bartels/document


Secondly, as Adam Curtis brilliantly pointed out in his doc…

Those are all facts, yes.


See what you're failing to understand, NGN, is that the political structure is heavily dictated by the commanding heights of the economy.

That’s like saying; “Water is wet.”


Policy matters reflect the wants of business and since the late 70s, it didn't matter whether Republican or Democrat, all had to succumb to corporate interests.

There are small differences. Democrats tend to prefer meager social protections, whereas Republicans want to totally annihilate all of it, etc.


Great book to counter the silly argument of 'lesser of two evils'.

No, just because it’s a very slight difference, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Even if it only made a difference for ten people, even one person, it would still be worth the 15 minutes out of your day.


You're silly to come in here with your moral superiority complex and telling us that "if we cared" we would vote the lesser of two evils.

I’m going to refrain from citing Chomsky this time. However, it’s absolutely true. There’s really no other way to see it. If you care, you do it.


What the lesser of two evils argument basically boils down to is; there is nothing you can do, abandon your aspiration for a better world and be "realistic".

No, it doesn’t. That isn’t what I’m saying. What I am saying is that we do not live in a fascist dictatorship, we actually have some institutional mechanisms through which we can exert influence. There are also non-institutional methods, that’s another subject.


The Democrats live off of class defeat.


Also, why would you use Ron Paul as an argument? I doubt even half the country would go for his silly ideas. Secondly, he is as much a viable candidate for votes as Nader, and he is a much viable alternative.

I’m not sure how Nader and Paul compare, I’d have to get better numbers. This is also entirely missing the point.

My point was the errors of the one-dimensional, black and white, ‘Incredible Hulk” approach; ”Government…Bad!!!” I never suggested the government was ideal, nor the Democratic party. However, there are instances where it makes sense to defend a bad institution from a much worse institution, or to tweak an existing one in a beneficial way, when the opportunity arises. This is why Anarchists don’t mingle with (Fake.) ‘Libertarians’ even though they want to take a hatchet to the government. Because in that case it actually hurts people, and we’re supposed to put our humanist ethics, first. There is an important distinction here that tends to get lost. I'm pretty sure it's a lost cause but I’ll try another example; I was a small part of a campaign in my state to (Successfully) decriminalize pot. Now, I realize that the state is an illegitimate institution, and I personally support legalization, I voted for it (Along with a majority of the electorate.) and as a result less young people got locked up. That’s not ideal, but it’s better. I could have sat on my mountaintop of holier-than-thou ideological purity and declined to participate, but only if I didn’t actually give a shit about anybody else.


I don't think there is anyone in here who takes the American political spectrum as a serious take on the left/right spectrum. We keep it in context, yes, to not be so confused, but we, at least, I do not take it seriously.

This is totally hopeless. I’m not going to say it, again.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fighting to keep social programs doesn't entail voting Dem or Rep, NGN. Third parties on the left and the public would fight to keep them.

[Sendo]

I usually love your inout Vegan, but I won't shed a tear...missionaires are the handmaidens of empire. The history of China around the time of the Boxer rebellion to the end of the Chinese civil war really spelled it out for me.

They had a converted Afghani in their midst, what did they think was going to happen. Winning hearts and minds. If they cared at all about humanitarianism it would be undr a secular banner. I'm reminded of the The Onion's video of a charity eager to give out aid to non-gay famine victims. It's back on their front page recently, actually.

Sorry, but I'm suspicious as fuck. I hate the Taliban, but I won't be alarmed by something like this in light of everything else they've done, things that have been far worse. The only religious group I trusted was the liberation theologists, and even in Latin America they've been weeded out the Catholic power system. I know there's groups like the Christian Science Monitor, but by and large, I don't trust them. Maybe I'm just edgy because in class today some right-wing evangelical blockhead was blurting out his extreme homophobia, disdain for scientists, and other ignorant comments.....again.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Again, I think the word 'support' is being stretched to it's limits. More to the point, I don't see what valuable, sound tactical alternative you're providing. Are you suggesting voting for third party candidates like Nader? (Incidentally, I do vote Green/Socialist in elections where the GOP is predicted to lose.) I think, if anything, that just ends up helping the GOP, it splits the left which essentially gives them more votes. Similarly, not voting at all is totally abdicating any responsibility. I mean, if you have some other constructive idea, I'm all ears.

How is it even possible to seriously construe the opportunist, imperialist, corporate-funded Democrats as part of "the left"?

The "valuable" and "sound" alternative that I'm promoting is to take part in our own efforts, campaigns, and organizations. There can be no third choice beyond either that or passively accepting the established status quo.

The current choice between two bourgeois candidates is a false dilemma. It would be sensible to support the Democrats only if the Republicans were truly some kind of fascist threat whose triumph at the polls would stifle any ability to fight back and criminalize all progressive activism outright.

The idea that it is better to support the Democrats lest the Republicans win in an election is one way of looking at the cards, but the logical extension of that is that it will always be better to support the Democrats -- lest the Republicans take control. If you believe that voting Democratic today is the best that we can do today, what's going to be your strategy tomorrow?

If you are willing to vote Democrat in 2012, why not in 2016, 2020, 2024, and 2028? Doesn't doing so help the Democrats -- and our corporate-run political establishment -- far more than it helps to improve the lives of ordinary people? At this rate, wouldn't we be better off working to strengthen a real working-class opposition to the mainstream current of the pseudo-left? Wouldn't the working class at home -- as well as the oppressed masses exploited by American imperialism abroad -- be better off with a real alternative at some point in the future?

I will admit that voting Democratic to keep out the GOP could seem rather tempting: indeed, for decades now, plenty of the Democratic electorate has been voting for them on the basis of that very let's-just-take-the-lesser-of-two-evils principle. Except that's wholly coherent with what the Democrats would like, and by no means a Marxist or radical perspective. With every reason to dislike the GOP, there is no way to go beyond the Democratic Party by going Democrat; at best, only minute progress will be achieved. We carry our own flag because, as radicals, we aim to end up elsewhere.

[NGNM85]

Fighting to keep social programs doesn't entail voting Dem or Rep, NGN. Third parties on the left and the public would fight to keep them.

Well, you'd still have to dirty your hands by actually voting.

I can't forsee any plausible scenario where modern Republicans would be defending social welfare programs.

Getting third parties into office is exceedingly difficult. That could also be fixed. Campaign finance reform sounds like a major snooze but it's vital. We need publicly financed campaigns, we need to cut out the corporate money. However, in the light of the recent SCOTUS decision, I don't see that happening anytime soon, although that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[RadioRaheem84]

Damn what a fucking reformist you are. I can't see both Dems or Reps defending social programs except for fear of revolt for rolling back the necessary spending.

The scenerios you paint make me wonder if you even understand the nature of state in a capitalist country.

[RadioRaheem84]

The current choice between two bourgeois candidates is a false dilemma. It would be sensible to support the Democrats only if the Republicans were truly some kind of fascist threat whose triumph at the polls would stifle any ability to fight back and criminalize all progressive activism outright.

This. Thank you. The rest of your post was spot on!

I really don't see how NGN has managed to get away with such arrogant reformist blather.

[NGNM85]

How is it even possible to seriously construe the opportunist, imperialist, corporate-funded Democrats as part of "the left"?

This is interesting. I didn’t say anything to that effect in this thread.

Regardless, I will answer. Well, it’s possible if you use the term literally. The Right/Left political spectrum, which is far from perfect, originated during the French revolution. It looks like this; http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png
The diagram is very sparsely marked, but one can easily fill in the blanks from Communists/Anarchists on the radical left (‘Radical’ in the technical sense of the word.), then Greens, Progressives, and Liberals, then Centrist Leftists, then the dead center which is called ‘moderate’, then conservative, reactionary, then fascist.



The "valuable" and "sound" alternative that I'm promoting is to take part in our own efforts, campaigns, and organizations. There can be no third choice beyond either that or passively accepting the established status quo.

This is a false dichotomy. The last time I voted I was out in 15 minutes. There is no reason, and I’m certainly not suggesting, that participating in local or national politics should negate other forms of activism. It isn’t a zero-sum game. You can vote on Tuesday, march on Wednesday, protest on Thursday, and smash a Starbucks on Friday, if you are so inclined.
There’s no reason why casting a ballot would in any way hamper any other form of political action.

Also, as I’ve said, this in now way requires one to succumb to any illusions.


The current choice between two bourgeois candidates is a false dilemma. It would be sensible to support the Democrats only if the Republicans were truly some kind of fascist threat whose triumph at the polls would stifle any ability to fight back and criminalize all progressive activism outright.

Not so. You can look at the study I cited, there is a difference, which is largely felt by the working class, as they are the most vulnerable. If you live in a totally blue state, then I’d advise voting Green/Socialist, however, otherwise it’s absolutely worth it.


The idea that it is better to support the Democrats lest the Republicans win in an election is one way of looking at the cards, but the logical extension of that is that it will always be better to support the Democrats -- lest the Republicans take control.

Yes.


If you believe that voting Democratic today is the best that we can do today, what's going to be your strategy tomorrow?

I don’t know about ‘best’, I don’t even know how you’d define that. However, we’re only talking about 15 minutes.


If you are willing to vote Democrat in 2012, why not in 2016, 2020, 2024, and 2028?

I can’t predict the political landscape going that far into the future. It’s totally conceivable the human race might be extinct by 2028. There are too many variables. If there was a better alternative, I’d gladly choose that, instead. As I said, I vote for other parties as well, depending on the circumstances of the election. Also this depends on us, are we able to get our shit together and create a meaningful alternative, or significantly change the landscape?
For example, I think we should view the recent healthcare bill as a collective failure of the Left. Likewise, with the ‘Tea Party movement.’


Doesn't doing so help the Democrats -- and our corporate-run political establishment -- far more than it helps to improve the lives of ordinary people? At this rate, wouldn't we be better off working to strengthen a real working-class opposition to the mainstream current of the pseudo-left?

I don’t see how a 20-minute trip to the polls would be a huge barrier to organizing. That’s a very minor investment. Also, nothing is achieved by not voting.

I also think continually supporting the most Left-leaning politicians could have a cumulative effect over time. While the present paradigm exists I think it makes sense to incentivize progressive policy. The Rush Limbaugh types may make the most noise, but most of the discontent with Obama is not that he’s too far to the Left, but that he isn’t far enough to the Left. There are opinion polls that bear this out.


Wouldn't the working class at home -- as well as the oppressed masses exploited by American imperialism abroad -- be better off with a real alternative at some point in the future?

Absolutely. One step towards that would be campaign finance reform, specifically, having publicly financed campaigns. Just cut out the corporate money. That would level the playing field and allow for a plurality of ideas and perspectives that more directly correlates to the views of the electorate. Another idea is what is called a preferential ballot. If a viable third party were to appear I would absolutely support it.

There are other things; organizing unions, holding sit-ins, strikes, marches, letter writing campaigns, petitions, etc. There are all sorts of devices and methods to agitate for political change. I just don’t see the sense in limiting ourselves to certain tactics.


I will admit that voting Democratic to keep out the GOP could seem rather tempting: indeed, for decades now, plenty of the Democratic electorate has been voting for them on the basis of that very let's-just-take-the-lesser-of-two-evils principle.

There’s nothing wrong with that, though. If you care, you choose the lesser evil.


Except that's wholly coherent with what the Democrats would like,

True, but it’s irrelevant, because that isn’t a factor.


and by no means a Marxist or radical perspective.

I really don’t worry about what is or isn’t ‘Marxist.’ Radical? That depends. It depends on what your priorities are. Does it lead to a revolution? No. However, that’s a very anti-working class attitude. You’re essentially saying their suffering is only important to the degree it’s politically useful. I would think that the whole point of being a ‘radical’ is based on a moral position.


With every reason to dislike the GOP, there is no way to go beyond the Democratic Party by going Democrat;

Again, this is a false dichotomy.


at best, only minute progress will be achieved.

Again, it depends on what your priorities are, and it’s still a false dichotomy.


We carry our own flag because, as radicals, we aim to end up elsewhere.

The society I’d like to live in bears little resemblance to the society that presently exists. However, we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand and dream of what we wish the world was like.

[RadioRaheem84]

The society I’d like to live in bears little resemblance to the society that presently exists. However, we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand and dream of what we wish the world was like. You act like the reality on the ground somehow favors the Democrats over the Republicans. This is a very liberal way of thinking because it has take the bourgeoisie press seriously when they insist of selling us their left/right spectrum.

As I have said earlier the way capitalism has been treading, it wouldn't matter if a Dem or Rep were in the White House.

You can cite all the bourgeois studies you want. The reality is that under Clinton, corporation saw the biggest expansion ever, and the neo-liberal era bloomed like no other, even under Reagan. The data suggests so. You seem to forget about how the policies affect people outside of the United States and during the 90s, the working class abroad saw a sharp decline in wages and living standards thanks to the faux-progressive "liberal left" world leaders.





Regardless, I will answer. Well, it’s possible if you use the term literally. The Right/Left political spectrum, which is far from perfect, originated during the French revolution. It looks like this; http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/lu...left-right.png (http://www.anonym.to/?http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png)
The diagram is very sparsely marked, but one can easily fill in the blanks from Communists/Anarchists on the radical left (‘Radical’ in the technical sense of the word.), then Greens, Progressives, and Liberals, then Centrist Leftists, then the dead center which is called ‘moderate’, then conservative, reactionary, then fascist.NGN, when are you going to realize that the political spectrum as is used currently by the bourgeoisie societies is not only false and misleading, but molded in a way to stir political discourse closer and closer to the right economically. There is no point is using the terms literally unless you're describing how it's used in context. Most of us in here do not use them literally and have no intention to use them literally. We do not consider the Dems left.