Die Neue Zeit
19th February 2011, 18:51
I thought that statements regarding Julius Caesar's conquests would be better off in a separate thread, so here it is.
First off, I'd like to start by referring to the controversial ICC thread "Leftists fuel bourgeois campaigns about 'revolution'":
http://www.revleft.com/vb/leftists-fuel-bourgeois-t149911/index.html
The truth is that many had illusions in Nasser, but that far from threatening imperialism he was an integral part of the imperialist conflicts in the region. During his rule and that of his successors Egypt became an outpost of Russian imperialism prior to switching sides in the conflict between the two blocs.
The promotion of Arab nationalism is widespread throughout the left. The ‘Communist Party of Great Britain’ that publishes Weekly Worker (quotes from nos 850 and 851) is particularly strong on pan-Arabism, in a way that is reminiscent of Bakunin's pan-Slavism. Avoiding a class analysis the CPGB says that Mubarak's Egypt is “An everyday living insult, and humiliation, to ordinary Egyptians and the very idea of pan-Arabism in general” and that “Arab reunification remains an urgent but unfulfilled task.” Instead of a marxist understanding of the international unity of the working class the CPGB argue that “the Arab masses have a shared problem. The answer should be a common solution, which, of course, there is - revolutionary pan-Arab unity.” Referring to the “Arab masses” and making pseudo-scientific pontifications about the “objective and cultural-psychological conditions for pan-Arab unity exist in abundance” does not change the class reality of capitalism, where only a conscious working class can overthrow bourgeois rule, and where all forms of nationalism stand in the way of class consciousness.
The CPGB claim that “A free Egypt, as part of a pan-Arab revolution that rages across the entire region, would challenge the hegemony of Israel.” This shows where their position leads. The expression “challenge the hegemony” ultimately means 'go to war with'. This is where the leftists' ideas lead. The CPGB's idea of a 'revolution' raging across the Middle East means plunging it into an imperialist war in which many of the 'Arab masses' will lose their lives.
First off, this is an organization that thinks every state and its foreign policy is intrinsically imperialist, down to East Timor. Like with Cliff and the Maoists, the "state capitalist" label used to describe the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe is a means to an end: labelling the Soviet Union as "imperialist," "social-imperialist," etc.
And now let's connect this with earlier history. For reasons of emphasizing the people's history in domestic policy, Michael Parenti sidelined Julius Caesar's foreign policy: that is, military conquests like that of Gaul. Despite the sheer barbarity of this, it does have relevance for working-class organization and potential Caesarean Socialism today and in the future:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/caesearean-socialism-t149189/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html
Instead of national petit-bourgeoisie, suppose pan-national petit-bourgeoisie running the potential Caesarean Socialism. Their Third World pan-nationalism could manifest itself in revived pan-Africanism, pan-sub-Saharanism, pan-Saharanism united with pan-Arabism (a comrade said the Saharan countries have more economic and cultural ties to Europe and the Middle East than they do with the sub-Saharan countries), pan-South Americanism, pan-Hispanic South Americanism, Bolivarianism, pan-Central Americanism, etc.
Now, let's also suppose that, considering the hostilities with the bourgeoisie and their camp, this pan-national petit-bourgeoisie and their Caesarean Socialism are in a position to have a realistic chance at winning an *offensive war* against either the whole bourgeois camp (and then globally liquidate the bourgeoisie and comprador petit-bourgeoisie altogether) or some bourgeois state or two amongst a really divided bourgeois camp (divide et impera). Keep in mind that some hysterical rants about slave labour are irrelevant. No slavery, plans for slave labour, bigger slave markets, etc. are involved here at all.
They start that war.
My remark in the March on Rome thread regarding "history's greatest imperialist general" was this:
If the pan-national petit-bourgeoisie of the whole Caesarean Socialist sphere of influence decides to *start* a war with bourgeois states knowing they've got a good chance of winning, the "defencist support" I mentioned earlier kicks in. It would be in the best interests of the global proletariat to throw its lot in with the Caesarean Socialist "warmongers." Naturally the bourgeoisie will portray the Caesarean Socialists as "aggressors," "would-be conquerors," "barbarians," etc.
That's the relevance of Julius Caesar's foreign policy.
In other words, the proletarian demographic minority in the Caesarean Socialist camp should emulate Engels and proverbially chant Veni, Vidi, Vici alongside their pan-national petit-bourgeois leaders in class-strugglist defencism, while the other proletariat should hasten the Caesarean Socialist victory.
First off, I'd like to start by referring to the controversial ICC thread "Leftists fuel bourgeois campaigns about 'revolution'":
http://www.revleft.com/vb/leftists-fuel-bourgeois-t149911/index.html
The truth is that many had illusions in Nasser, but that far from threatening imperialism he was an integral part of the imperialist conflicts in the region. During his rule and that of his successors Egypt became an outpost of Russian imperialism prior to switching sides in the conflict between the two blocs.
The promotion of Arab nationalism is widespread throughout the left. The ‘Communist Party of Great Britain’ that publishes Weekly Worker (quotes from nos 850 and 851) is particularly strong on pan-Arabism, in a way that is reminiscent of Bakunin's pan-Slavism. Avoiding a class analysis the CPGB says that Mubarak's Egypt is “An everyday living insult, and humiliation, to ordinary Egyptians and the very idea of pan-Arabism in general” and that “Arab reunification remains an urgent but unfulfilled task.” Instead of a marxist understanding of the international unity of the working class the CPGB argue that “the Arab masses have a shared problem. The answer should be a common solution, which, of course, there is - revolutionary pan-Arab unity.” Referring to the “Arab masses” and making pseudo-scientific pontifications about the “objective and cultural-psychological conditions for pan-Arab unity exist in abundance” does not change the class reality of capitalism, where only a conscious working class can overthrow bourgeois rule, and where all forms of nationalism stand in the way of class consciousness.
The CPGB claim that “A free Egypt, as part of a pan-Arab revolution that rages across the entire region, would challenge the hegemony of Israel.” This shows where their position leads. The expression “challenge the hegemony” ultimately means 'go to war with'. This is where the leftists' ideas lead. The CPGB's idea of a 'revolution' raging across the Middle East means plunging it into an imperialist war in which many of the 'Arab masses' will lose their lives.
First off, this is an organization that thinks every state and its foreign policy is intrinsically imperialist, down to East Timor. Like with Cliff and the Maoists, the "state capitalist" label used to describe the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe is a means to an end: labelling the Soviet Union as "imperialist," "social-imperialist," etc.
And now let's connect this with earlier history. For reasons of emphasizing the people's history in domestic policy, Michael Parenti sidelined Julius Caesar's foreign policy: that is, military conquests like that of Gaul. Despite the sheer barbarity of this, it does have relevance for working-class organization and potential Caesarean Socialism today and in the future:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/caesearean-socialism-t149189/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html
Instead of national petit-bourgeoisie, suppose pan-national petit-bourgeoisie running the potential Caesarean Socialism. Their Third World pan-nationalism could manifest itself in revived pan-Africanism, pan-sub-Saharanism, pan-Saharanism united with pan-Arabism (a comrade said the Saharan countries have more economic and cultural ties to Europe and the Middle East than they do with the sub-Saharan countries), pan-South Americanism, pan-Hispanic South Americanism, Bolivarianism, pan-Central Americanism, etc.
Now, let's also suppose that, considering the hostilities with the bourgeoisie and their camp, this pan-national petit-bourgeoisie and their Caesarean Socialism are in a position to have a realistic chance at winning an *offensive war* against either the whole bourgeois camp (and then globally liquidate the bourgeoisie and comprador petit-bourgeoisie altogether) or some bourgeois state or two amongst a really divided bourgeois camp (divide et impera). Keep in mind that some hysterical rants about slave labour are irrelevant. No slavery, plans for slave labour, bigger slave markets, etc. are involved here at all.
They start that war.
My remark in the March on Rome thread regarding "history's greatest imperialist general" was this:
If the pan-national petit-bourgeoisie of the whole Caesarean Socialist sphere of influence decides to *start* a war with bourgeois states knowing they've got a good chance of winning, the "defencist support" I mentioned earlier kicks in. It would be in the best interests of the global proletariat to throw its lot in with the Caesarean Socialist "warmongers." Naturally the bourgeoisie will portray the Caesarean Socialists as "aggressors," "would-be conquerors," "barbarians," etc.
That's the relevance of Julius Caesar's foreign policy.
In other words, the proletarian demographic minority in the Caesarean Socialist camp should emulate Engels and proverbially chant Veni, Vidi, Vici alongside their pan-national petit-bourgeois leaders in class-strugglist defencism, while the other proletariat should hasten the Caesarean Socialist victory.