Anti-Anti-Imperialism?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What does practical anti-anti-imperialism look like?
How, for example, do anti-anti-imperialists relate to anti-war movements?
What sort of concrete activities do anti-anti-imperialists carry out when their country is engaged in military operations to oppose those operations (if any)?

[Bostana]

Those are the guys who are waving the flag and yelling "freedom isn't free" They also genuinely believe every war their country gets in is just and anybody who doesn't believe them is a "freedom hating commi-nazi liberal Muslim terrorist"

EDIT:
Their general tactics is to use propaganda and politics of fear to convince you to join their side. They also (As stated earlier) accuse you of being some sort of anti-human baby eating terrorist and if you're not with them, you're against them.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Those are the guys who are waving the flag and yelling "freedom isn't free" They also genuinely believe every war their country gets in is just and anybody who doesn't believe them is a "freedom hating commi-nazi liberal Muslim terrorist"

EDIT:
Their general tactics is to use propaganda and politics of fear to convince you to join their side. They also (As stated earlier) accuse you of being some sort of anti-human baby eating terrorist and if you're not with them, you're against them.

LOL.

Sorry, to clarify, I meant "Left Communists", post-Pro-Situs, and others on the left who oppose anti-imperialism on the basis that it's "picking sides with one section of the bourgeoisie".

[synthesis]

What does practical anti-anti-imperialism look like?
How, for example, do anti-anti-imperialists relate to anti-war movements?
What sort of concrete activities do anti-anti-imperialists carry out when their country is engaged in military operations to oppose those operations (if any)?

First, this should probably be in Theory, as that is where most of the people who are interested in this question are going to see it. And yes, I'm aware that has implications in and of itself. People look at the socialist response to imperialism as a matter of theoretical integrity rather than some sort of tool to be used short-sightedly.

But I think you're not framing the question correctly. Nobody here is "anti-anti-imperialism," which is not just because it's an awkward phrasing. It's the same as how opposing anti-fascism doesn't mean you're going to take up arms against the anti-fascists.

And this also clears up the "anti-war" issue: People don't oppose anti-imperialism, or anti-fascism, or anti-war agitation. What they oppose is class collaboration. The idea that imperialism or fascism is so bad that it requires the anti-imperialist or anti-fascist to ask socialists and their local working class to forget about class issues until the threat is dealt with, and almost always eventually ask them to join one bourgeoisie or another to fight their battles for them.

So asking "what does this principled opposition to class collaboration look like in practice" doesn't make sense. Once you recognize that one bourgeoisie is not superior to another, these causes only become useful insofar as they are issues around which the socialist can organize the working class.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

First, this should probably be in Theory, as that is where most of the people who are interested in this question are going to see it. And yes, I'm aware that has implications in and of itself. People look at the socialist response to imperialism as a matter of theoretical integrity rather than some sort of tool to be used short-sightedly.

ROFLROFLROFL. Uh, yeah, that does have implications in and of itself.
You don't really address them either (other than alluding to the idea that practice is short-sighted :laugh:).


But I think you're not framing the question correctly. Nobody here is "anti-anti-imperialism," which is not just because it's an awkward phrasing. It's the same as how opposing anti-fascism doesn't mean you're going to take up arms against the anti-fascists.

OK, so you're not going to go fist-fight anti-war demonstrators. But what are you going to do?



And this also clears up the "anti-war" issue: People don't oppose anti-imperialism, or anti-fascism, or anti-war agitation. What they oppose is class collaboration. The idea that imperialism or fascism is so bad that it requires the anti-imperialist or anti-fascist to ask socialists and their local working class to forget about class issues until the threat is dealt with, and almost always eventually ask them to join one bourgeoisie or another to fight their battles for them.

OK, OK, OK. But, (a) since when does saying "Hands off Ukraine!" constitute "forgetting about class issues" (as if it's not a class issue?)? And, (b) what does opposing imperialism or fascism look like, in terms of practice, framed by these criteria?


So asking "what does this principled opposition to class collaboration look like in practice" doesn't make sense. Once you recognize that one bourgeoisie is not superior to another, these causes only become useful insofar as they are issues around which the socialist can organize the working class.

OK, but organize how? On what terms by what means?
Do you go to an antiwar rally and yell, "Cretins! Read Marx!" at the attendees?

[Sasha]

It's also not anti-imperialism people oppose, its "Anti-imperialism tm", its opposing the indeed class collaborationist "ideology". That "anti-anti-imperialists" (nice loaded invention btw) somehow would oppose "anti-war activists" is a massive strawman. Internationalists would join anti-war demonstrations and actions, they just wouldn't wave baathist flags and declare bourgeois anti-workingclass dictators "friends" and "proletarian leaders".

[synthesis]

TGDU, I guess I forgot that you are incapable of engaging in these discussions without acting like a fucking baby. This kind of thing happens every god damn time.


ROFLROFLROFL. Uh, yeah, that does have implications in and of itself.
You don't really address them either (other than alluding to the idea that practice is short-sighted :laugh:).

The implications are that the Practice & Propaganda forums appeal to a certain subsection of the left that is mutually exclusive with what would in this case be called "ultra-leftism." I suppose the argument would be that in this instance, those who prefer the latter prefer to figure out what the fuck it is they're actually doing before they start engaging in action for the sake of action and wind up abandoning working class politics (if you ever had them in the first place) in the name of fighting some "Greater Evil." Despite the description of Practice & Propaganda, this is generally not seen as a place to discuss broader theoretical issues like class collaboration.


OK, so you're not going to go fist-fight anti-war demonstrators. But what are you going to do?

Do about what? First I think you should explain why it is that socialists need to do anything, outside of the context of working towards international working class revolution.


OK, OK, OK. But, (a) since when does saying "Hands off Ukraine!" constitute "forgetting about class issues" (as if it's not a class issue?)? And, (b) what does opposing imperialism or fascism look like, in terms of practice, framed by these criteria?

"Hands off Ukraine!" contains an assumption that the Russian bourgeoisie is preferable to the U.S.-backed Ukrainian regime.

Look, I'll say this again because it doesn't seem like you're getting it: People who argue against "anti-imperialism" and "anti-fascism" are not arguing in favor of imperialism or fascism. What they are arguing against is the notion that U.S. imperialism in the Ukraine, or the U.S. backed regime in the Ukraine, is qualitatively worse than Russian imperialism or the Russia-backed regime in the Ukraine.


OK, but organize how? On what terms by what means?
Do you go to an antiwar rally and yell, "Cretins! Read Marx!" at the attendees?

That would probably be more productive, in communist terms, than anything you're advocating here.

[reb]

Is someone sore from the other thread? You can oppose a war without supporting a side.

[Fourth Internationalist]

...they just wouldn't wave baathist flags and declare bourgeois anti-workingclass dictators "friends" and "proletarian leaders".

It's pretty sad to see the number of "communists" (mostly Stalinists, unsurprisingly) who do just this. For them, bourgeois anti-working class dictators, such as [insert Stalinist dictator], are their favorites who they consider proletarian leaders. Why is it a surprise Assad or Ghadaffi are called "good leaders" when they also praise the likes of Stalin or Mao? It's just so irritating to see a large amount of "Marxists" do this obvious betrayal of Marxism so openly. Bourgeois leaders should never be praised like that. How can we work with the oppressed workers of such nations while demanding them to give their full support to a brutal dictatorship they live under? That's foolish!

[The Feral Underclass]

But what is it precisely that 'anti-imperialists' do practically?

[Alexios]

ROFLROFLROFL.

Loving all these one-liners and smartass remarks. It really makes your case look like the better one! I better get on my straw hat, grab my AK, and march down to my college to educate the masses on why I, as a white middle class university student, am the West's greatest expert on the struggles of oppressed people, and why they are all racists and pro-imperialists! Thanks for the inspiration :^)

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's not as if the issue of opposing phenomena like fascism etc. without compromising your internationalist principles is something completely abstract...for historical perspective, certain activists like Onorato Damen or Carlo Tresca for instance were involved in anti-fascist work but weren't "antifa" as it's understood today, obviously. Instances of individual anarchists or left communists being involved in anti-war work without tacit support of some tinpot dictator are too numerous to count. As far as I'm concerned if you have no idea how many in the left communist or anarchist sets conceptualize or act upon issues like fascism or war, then you're not paying attention or have no genuine interest in properly understanding their position.

[Brotto Rühle]

What does practical "anti-imperialism" do to combat imperialism... besides throwing support behind capitalists? Is it the cosplay that makes you so awesome?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

But what is it precisely that 'anti-imperialists' do practically?

The antiwar movement (in my town this, lately, includes weekly "No Harbour for War" info-pickets, annual demonstrations against the Halifax International Security Forum, etc.), BDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions) and Palestine Solidarity work, anti-colonial solidarity work with the Mi'kmaq (from fundraising to being on the barricades), etc. - it seems to me that this is obvious and quite well documented.

What anti-anti-imperialists are up to, if this thread is any indication, seems to be . . . uh . . . well, Sasha was like, "The same thing, but without the Ba'athist flags." To be honest, I've never in my life carried any flag that wasn't black, red, black and red, or black and green (unless it was for the purpose of setting it on fire), so I think he's barking up the wrong tree, and, in any case, he hardly seems to share the politics of most of this thread's other posters.

So, is that it?
Is the difference simply that y'all are obsessed with the idea that some "anti-imperialists" are running around with North Korean flags and sending money to Assad (I have yet to meet such people), but, in the final analysis, see the same practical activity as good/necessary?

[Brotto Rühle]

The antiwar movement (in my town this, lately, includes weekly "No Harbour for War" info-pickets, annual demonstrations against the Halifax International Security Forum, etc.), BDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions) and Palestine Solidarity work, anti-colonial solidarity work with the Mi'kmaq (from fundraising to being on the barricades), etc. - it seems to me that this is obvious and quite well documented.

What anti-anti-imperialists are up, if this thread is any indication, seems to be . . . uh . . . well, Sasha was like, "The same thing, but without the Ba'athist flags." To be honest, I've never in my life carried any flag that wasn't black, red, black and red, or black and green (unless it was for the purpose of setting it on fire), so I think he's barking up the wrong tree, and, in any case, hardly seems to share the politics of most of the threads other posters.

So, is that it?
Is the difference simply that y'all are obsessed with the idea that some "anti-imperialists" are running around with North Korean flags and sending money to Assad (I have yet to meet such people), but, in the final analysis, see the same practical activity as good/necessary?How come you keep ignoring the biggest point against you? The class collaborationist support for a sector of the bourgeoisie.

[reb]

The antiwar movement (in my town this, lately, includes weekly "No Harbour for War" info-pickets, annual demonstrations against the Halifax International Security Forum, etc.), BDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions) and Palestine Solidarity work, anti-colonial solidarity work with the Mi'kmaq (from fundraising to being on the barricades), etc. - it seems to me that this is obvious and quite well documented.

What anti-anti-imperialists are up, if this thread is any indication, seems to be . . . uh . . . well, Sasha was like, "The same thing, but without the Ba'athist flags." To be honest, I've never in my life carried any flag that wasn't black, red, black and red, or black and green (unless it was for the purpose of setting it on fire), so I think he's barking up the wrong tree, and, in any case, hardly seems to share the politics of most of the threads other posters.

So, is that it?
Is the difference simply that y'all are obsessed with the idea that some "anti-imperialists" are running around with North Korean flags and sending money to Assad (I have yet to meet such people), but, in the final analysis, see the same practical activity as good/necessary?

Do you have any actual argument in this whole thread besides "boo-hoo someone doesn't like my support of foreign bourgeoisie"? How many sides have you picked?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How come you keep ignoring the biggest point against you? The class collaborationist support for a sector of the bourgeoisie.

I don't really see what this has to do with "points". I asked a question - what does your practical activity look like, faced with real world questions concerning your countries' foreign policies?


Do you have any actual argument in this whole thread besides "boo-hoo someone doesn't like my support of foreign bourgeoisie"? How many sides have you picked?

No, I don't have "an argument" at all, in fact. I have a question. What do you actually do?

If the answer is nothing, you should just say so.

[Brotto Rühle]

What do you live in White River Junction or Thessalon or something? Never had the chance to actually do anything and feeling bitter about it?
If you have an actual argument, post it here, not post random shit on my page.

[Alexios]

I don't really see what this has to do with "points". I asked a question - what does your practical activity look like, faced with real world questions concerning your countries' foreign policies?

But there's been an anti-war movement in North America for decades. It's accomplished nothing. All of your "anti-imperialism" is just first-world posturing and is really quite pathetic.


No, I don't have "an argument" at all, in fact. I have a question. What do you actually do?

If the answer is nothing, you should just say so.

Haha, shut the fuck up. Your question is clearly a loaded one that you formulated because a bunch of people kicked your ass in the other thread. It doesn't appear to be a clever strategy at all, judging by the fact that everyone saw right through it immediately and refused to take the bait.

[synthesis]

What anti-anti-imperialists are up, if this thread is any indication, seems to be . . . uh . . . well, Sasha was like, "The same thing, but without the Ba'athist flags." To be honest, I've never in my life carried any flag that wasn't black, red, black and red, or black and green (unless it was for the purpose of setting it on fire), so I think he's barking up the wrong tree, and, in any case, hardly seems to share the politics of most of the threads other posters.

Again you are acting like a toddler throwing an epic, three-day tantrum and refusing to engage in any serious manner with anything people are saying. This would almost resemble an acceptable response if you weren't the one that started this thread to invite people to share their opinions on this.

If you don't think you're asking a loaded question, then read what people have to say about why they think it is a loaded question, then after you've satisfactorily established that it is not a loaded question by these criteria, or that these criteria are not in line with working class politics, you can proceed to badger people with your stupid fucking questions.

"An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory, but a ton of action without an ounce of theory is worth nothing at all."

[blake 3:17]

@TGDU -- in our milieus pretty much all anti-imperialists are progressive across the board with our petty squabbles here and there. From some of what Sasha's told me, it's not like that where he is and bigots will join rallies and marches that wouldn't here. I am an internationalist, but I do think an abstract internationalism is one that sides with imperialism. If people don't act on it, who gives a flying fuck? Most people on this board oppose the international BDS campaign for any number of reasons. Whatevs. I signed a couple of petitions against people being executed today & I'm sure that's a sign of my reliance on the bourgeois state. Do I care that I could be called a rotten reformist for opposing brutal state murder? If you see racism or bigotry in movements you're in, fight that. I think you got your head on pretty straight.

[blake 3:17]

How come you keep ignoring the biggest point against you? The class collaborationist support for a sector of the bourgeoisie.

Oh. Ok. Thanks. That's extremely enlightening. Like running money to independent trade unions in Iraq under Saddam? We were doing that in the mid & late 90s.

I get so sick of this lefty left bullshit -- you work with you got & try to do right. I was so puzzled when I read Harry Haywood's autobiography and he was dressing Trots down for "pure proletarianism" and then I come across some stupid accusation of "class collaboration" (with zero context and no meaning) and see Brother Haywood was onto something.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I get so sick of this lefty left bullshit -- you work with you got & try to do right. I was so puzzled when I read Harry Haywood's autobiography and he was dressing Trots down for "pure proletarianism" and then I come across some stupid accusation of "class collaboration" (with zero context and no meaning) and see Brother Haywood was onto something.

Well Haywood like his contemporaries such as William Z Foster was also a hack for the USSR & Stalin, too, so that should be taken into account when mentioning any dressing down of Trots...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Getting a little too buddy-buddy with certain "anti-imperialist" leaders has been a phenomenon with certain left-wing groupings, too, it's not just a figment of people's imagination, whether it's something largely meaningless like having a dinner date with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or something a bit more shameful like Healyites helping Ghaddafi do his dirty work or whatever

[o well this is ok I guess]

No, I don't have "an argument" at all, in fact. I have a question. What do you actually do?

If the answer is nothing, you should just say so. cuz the admittance of nothing (which is somewhat implicit, dunno if anyone here would feel guilty cuz they didn't go to this or that "hands off x" protest) leads us all down the same tired old discussion of doing something vs. not doing something, just like every other god damn left forum or discussion group.
someone quotes zizek, a bunch of maoists throw tantrums about posters being petty bourgeoisie or some shit, and then (hopefully) into the trash bin this all goes.
seriously as a mod should you yourself be backsliding forum quality in such a way in such a way?

[Sasha]

Here we have "anti-imps" allowing fascists and neo-nazi's to speech at "anti-war" demonstrations, we had "anti-war" activists trying to recruit volunteers to fight for Milosevic and Sadam. "anti-war" demonstrations where Hezbollah was praised for provoking a war with Israel. "anti-war" demonstrations where there where hundreds of portrets of Assad totted around or where the protocols of Zion where quoted.

Are you really surprised I rather go to anti-war demonstrations by liberals than those organised or dominated by the self described "anti-imperialists"?

[o well this is ok I guess]

man i remember a story from a couple years back
there was a demo against an intervention in iran. it would have been the epitome of irrelevant (there were like 20 people and none of the pedestrians seemed to give a shit), but they had an actual iranian communist speaking at the event. he goes on the usual line of why imperialism is bad and all, that we should stand with the iranian people against nato aggression.

a bit of background on the guy: he was part of a marxist org during the iranian revolution, remember him calling the rise of the shah a hijacking of the revolution. he got out of iran for fear of his life. cuz he coulda been shot. So yeah, naturally he says "but we should also oppose the current administration of iran"

and you know what the organizers of the event do? boo him the fuck off stage.

if doing the anti-imp thing around town means having to stand besides these sort of fuckwads then i'm never doing it

[The Feral Underclass]

The antiwar movement (in my town this, lately, includes weekly "No Harbour for War" info-pickets, annual demonstrations against the Halifax International Security Forum, etc.), BDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions) and Palestine Solidarity work, anti-colonial solidarity work with the Mi'kmaq (from fundraising to being on the barricades), etc. - it seems to me that this is obvious and quite well documented.

So, pointless activity?


What do you actually do?

Attempting to build class unity and solidarity in the workplace and community. What else should I be doing?

[DOOM]

It's pretty sad to see the number of "communists" (mostly Stalinists, unsurprisingly) who do just this. For them, bourgeois anti-working class dictators, such as [insert Stalinist dictator], are their favorites who they consider proletarian leaders. Why is it a surprise Assad or Ghadaffi are called "good leaders" when they also praise the likes of Stalin or Mao? It's just so irritating to see a large amount of "Marxists" do this obvious betrayal of Marxism so openly. Bourgeois leaders should never be praised like that. How can we work with the oppressed workers of such nations while demanding them to give their full support to a brutal dictatorship they live under? That's foolish!

That's poorly reflected anti-westernism, especially anti-americanism, in this case. And it's not coincidental, that Neo-Nazis have a similar point of view, regarding eastern dictators.

[Q]

But there's been an anti-war movement in North America for decades. It's accomplished nothing. All of your "anti-imperialism" is just first-world posturing and is really quite pathetic.



Haha, shut the fuck up. Your question is clearly a loaded one that you formulated because a bunch of people kicked your ass in the other thread. It doesn't appear to be a clever strategy at all, judging by the fact that everyone saw right through it immediately and refused to take the bait.
If you can't have a respectful discussion to a legitimate question, please refrain from replying at all.

Verbal warning.

[The Feral Underclass]

I love how Q is just completely random in his moderation, ignoring all the other problems in this thread. Alexios is sacrificed for the greater good.

Well, you know what? I give you a verbal warning, Q. How do you like them apples?

[keine_zukunft]

Being anti- anti-imperialist isn't necessarily being pro imperialist per say but alot of it's about having a critical analysis on the anti-imperialist struggles. i think it's really fucked up seeing leftists support really reactionary causes or groups just because they are anti-imperialist, like people supporting hamas!! yet you have to remember that depending on where you stand is often defined on how you see the nation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. I don't think this thread is particularly "backsliding" - I think "doing something"/"not doing something" is an interesting discussion when framed by certain particular questions - in this case, how does one agitate or fight against wars, interventions, and international meddling by one's government.

2. I think Sasha's posts have been interesting, because they refer to something I've never seen here. Plausibly this reflects where some other posters are coming from as well (though, again, it kind of doesn't seem that way). I wouldn't necessarily disagree with his conclusion either. It sounds like, in the case he's described, the choice is one between a "mass" demo with some liberal leadership, or a bizarre sectarian affair that's in love with third-world dictators. If that's correct, in my opinion, it makes sense to go to the former, meet people where they're at, and carry out serious propaganda/outreach work to win them over to revolutionary positions.

3. o well ... 's post is also interesting. It seems to me that a coherent anti-imperialism would hold existing communist leadership (not in the sense of party leaders) within countries facing imperialist assault - the "front line" as it were - up, and follow their lead (as with women in women's struggles, and so on). This instance of blatantly favouring a particular bourgeois government, again, is relatively outside my experience. Of course, the question is, does one go and attempt to meet and build links with Iranian communists, or does one stay home on account of the arseholes?

[Brotto Rühle]

1. I don't think this thread is particularly "backsliding" - I think "doing something"/"not doing something" is an interesting discussion when framed by certain particular questions - in this case, how does one agitate or fight against wars, interventions, and international meddling by one's government.
Those who "do nothing" are doing far more to help the proletariat of North Korea than you're LARPing and e-support for the bourgeoisie in North Korea.



3. o well ... 's post is also interesting. It seems to me that a coherent anti-imperialism would hold existing communist leadership (not in the sense of party leaders) within countries facing imperialist assault - the "front line" as it were - up, and follow their lead (as with women in women's struggles, and so on). This instance of blatantly favouring a particular bourgeois government, again, is relatively outside my experience. Of course, the question is, does one go and attempt to meet and build links with Iranian communists, or does one stay home on account of the arseholes?These "existing communist leaders" are nothing but members of the capitalist class of those nations. The Iranian communists aren't going to solve the problem of Iranian capitalism or imperialism. They are mostly soc dems and state caps themselves. The class itself has to do these tasks. I'm sick of this elitist attitude towawrd the proletariat, as if we're some sort of dumbass blob of students awaiting our glorious teacher (the vanguard) to lead us to communism.

Anne Jaclard talked about it. Here's a written version of the talk:
Let’s Mobilize the Left to Reject the Dogma that Workers Need their “Consciousness Raised” (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/lets-mobilize-the-left-to-reject-the-dogma-that-workers-need-their-consciousness-raised)


Oh. Ok. Thanks. That's extremely enlightening. Like running money to independent trade unions in Iraq under Saddam? We were doing that in the mid & late 90s.
Yeah.


I get so sick of this lefty left bullshit -- you work with you got & try to do right. I was so puzzled when I read Harry Haywood's autobiography and he was dressing Trots down for "pure proletarianism" and then I come across some stupid accusation of "class collaboration" (with zero context and no meaning) and see Brother Haywood was onto something.Really? you're sick of your own moonbattiness? About time.

Class collaboration, as in you are OPENLY supporting the BOURGEOISIE of a particular state. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you support the proletariat of North Korea to begin with.


If you can't have a respectful discussion to a legitimate question, please refrain from replying at all.

Verbal warning.Seriously? This is what, out of this entire fiasco of a thread get's a warning? Not TGDU's blatantly bigoted "do you even english!?". Wow.

[synthesis]

3. o well ... 's post is also interesting. It seems to me that a coherent anti-imperialism would hold existing communist leadership (not in the sense of party leaders) within countries facing imperialist assault - the "front line" as it were - up, and follow their lead (as with women in women's struggles, and so on). This instance of blatantly favouring a particular bourgeois government, again, is relatively outside my experience. Of course, the question is, does one go and attempt to meet and build links with Iranian communists, or does one stay home on account of the arseholes?

Meet with them to do what?

[Rurkel]

So, let's say that the United States and a Glorious People's Republic of Third-Worldia are at war. The war starts to become unpopular in the US. There're mass strikes on weapon factories, calling for an end to the war, which the US is winning so far (albeit with tough resistance from the army of Third-Worldia). Do you attempt to give any support you can to the striking workers, or do you state that since such strikes make Third-Worldia's ruling class' job easier, such demand is not to be supported?

[synthesis]

I love how Q is just completely random in his moderation, ignoring all the other problems in this thread. Alexios is sacrificed for the greater good.

Well, you know what? I give you a verbal warning, Q. How do you like them apples?

It's weird considering the fact that this thread was obvious flamebait in the first place.


So, let's say that the United States and a Glorious People's Republic of Third-Worldia are at war. The war starts to become unpopular in the US. There're mass strikes on weapon factories, calling for an end to the war, which the US is winning so far (albeit with tough resistance from the army of Third-Worldia). Do you attempt to give any support you can to the striking workers, or do you state that since such strikes make Third-Worldia's ruling class' job easier, such demand is not to be supported?


since such strikes make Third-Worldia's ruling class' job easier, such demand is not to be supported

What? Is your understanding of working class politics really this shallow?

[The Feral Underclass]

I think it is fundamentally ridiculous to suggest that standing around having stalls is what qualifies anti-imperialist 'practice.' It is such a Western attitude.

[o well this is ok I guess]

1. I don't think this thread is particularly "backsliding" - I think "doing something"/"not doing something" is an interesting discussion when framed by certain particular questions - in this case, how does one agitate or fight against wars, interventions, and international meddling by one's government. dude i can frame the krondstadt question in 5 different ways (with an included poem!) and the discussion will never diverge from the script. Posters here have been showing remarkable restrain in trying to guide the topic away from it, but we may as well acknowledge that this is going to end as it has always ended, whether it had been about pension struggles or student strikes. the answer was and is always going to be roughly the same, as is yours.


If that's correct, in my opinion, it makes sense to go to the former, meet people where they're at, and carry out serious propaganda/outreach work to win them over to revolutionary positions. mickey mao here gonna show us the leading light of leading light communism, give us proles our salvation. was the "Cretins! Read Marx!" remark a slur or a suggestion? cuz it seems like the latter, albeit without the "cretins" part.


3. o well ... 's post is also interesting. It seems to me that a coherent anti-imperialism would hold existing communist leadership (not in the sense of party leaders) within countries facing imperialist assault - the "front line" as it were - up, and follow their lead (as with women in women's struggles, and so on). This instance of blatantly favouring a particular bourgeois government, again, is relatively outside my experience. Of course, the question is, does one go and attempt to meet and build links with Iranian communists, or does one stay home on account of the arseholes?ahahaha ok suppose I'll just catch a plane over to iran and ask if anyone knows someone part of any illegal communist orgs and whether or not they're willing to exchange letters with some shitty undergrad like myself?
Or do you mean within the community? build relations with iranian communists around town? job done bro there's a grand total of one of them.

hey you know what i'm off to the philippines again next year maybe i'll do the jungle maoist thing and extract revolutionary taxes from provincials or some shit, gotta let the "existing communist leadership within countries facing imperialist assault" take the lead!

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm not a global mod so I have no ability to issue warnings here but I'd like to politely ask that every be cool and not insult other people. The OP is what it is and if folks have a problem then you can argue it intensely but flaming is not allowed on the forum.

Thanks!

[Sasha]

I think it is fundamentally ridiculous to suggest that standing around having stalls is what qualifies anti-imperialist 'practice.' It is such a Western attitude.

To be fair "anti-imp's" around here (actually Germany) occasionally burn down military infrastructure or shoot at some NATO offices and such... They do good stuff at times but their theory is just completely flawed (and even some anti-imp groups like RARA did have some sound theory, its more the wannabe RAF/PFLP and Lenin cossplayer crowd I have problems with)

[SHORAS]

Bit self defeating asking a load of leftists what they think Leftcom's do in relation to so and so. Try reading leftcom websites, ask directly or even in the leftcom group on this site.

[Devrim]

dp

[Devrim]

So, let's say that the United States and a Glorious People's Republic of Third-Worldia are at war. The war starts to become unpopular in the US. There're mass strikes on weapon factories, calling for an end to the war, which the US is winning so far (albeit with tough resistance from the army of Third-Worldia). Do you attempt to give any support you can to the striking workers, or do you state that since such strikes make Third-Worldia's ruling class' job easier, such demand is not to be supported?

I think that you have misunderstood left communist politics. Left communists always argue that workers have to fight against their own states and against their imperialist actions, so of course they wold support these sort of strikes.

The question is though what would you do in the opposite position? If you lived in the 'Glorious People's Republic of Third-Worldia', and there were strikes during a war against the US, would you support those strikes, or argue as much of the left has done that "we have no choice but to support the xxxxxxxx regime...it would be wrong to strike...socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front… should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort."*

Devrim

*Quotation taken from the UK SWP 1987

[Devrim]

To be fair "anti-imp's" around here (actually Germany) occasionally burn down military infrastructure or shoot at some NATO offices and such... They do good stuff at times but their theory is just completely flawed (and even some anti-imp groups like RARA did have some sound theory, its more the wannabe RAF/PFLP and Lenin cossplayer crowd I have problems with)

What is good about some leftists burning down military structure, and shooting at some NATO offices?

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

What is good about some leftists burning down military structure, and shooting at some NATO offices?

Devrim

Erm, because the military buildings were on fire and the NATO offices were damaged, I'd imagine...Isn't that self-explanatory?

[reb]

Erm, because the military buildings were on fire and the NATO offices were damaged, I'd imagine...Isn't that self-explanatory?

How does that change social-relations or end the law of value?

[The Feral Underclass]

How does that change social-relations or end the law of value?

That is a redundant question. If you want to engage in a discourse about revolutionary practice then find less parochial ways to address it.

[synthesis]

Erm, because the military buildings were on fire and the NATO offices were damaged, I'd imagine...Isn't that self-explanatory?

In isolation from class struggle, though? How is that a positive thing?

[The Feral Underclass]

In isolation from class struggle, though? How is that a positive thing?

Well, I guess it would depend on how you felt about military and NATO buildings.

[Sasha]

its mostly a propagandic action, though when i say infrastructure i meant that they primairly target not buildings but transport trucks etc which (even though probably not making much difference considering the scale of operations and the low intensity of these attacks) do hinder the moving of men and material towards war zones.
esp, in the build up towards the wars in afghanistan and iraq these (presumably) half a dozen or so german anti-imps did more to hurt the US war effort by burning down a whole bunch of strategic and expensive military equipment in germany than the millions shouting on the streets in the US did.
its not the way i would fight, the effect is way too small and the risks are way too high in my oppinion but its the path they chose and more power to them.

(so now it turned to that I of all people are defending anti-imps, what has revleft come too?)

[black magick hustla]

okay finally i was able to log in into my stupid account.

i feel "anti-imperialism" is only "meaningful" in the context of national liberation and national liberation been a dead horse more or less since the ussr kicked the bucket. today, in the context of sects, it ususally means a bunch of nerds larping geopolitics and at best, it means a man and his dog penning in a newspaper that they're in favor of whatever group happens to be in the cia's terrorist list, and at worse it means people actually sending money to the pflp and then getting raided by the fed

so i don't know what "anti-imperialism" means practically today beyond a ritual of social-lepers and insulated millieus. before "anti-imperialism", both in the west and in third world countries, had the real backing of china or the ussr so it was a real geopolitical force or sorts, so even if i would've disagreed, there was an argument for it.

[reb]

That is a redundant question. If you want to engage in a discourse about revolutionary practice then find less parochial ways to address it.

If you don't want to talk about how burning down buildings does not organize the proletariat, help in wage conflicts or causes the law of value to be abolished then you don't have to. You don't have dodge the question in the sake of trying to look cool about it the same way that the garbage disposal unit has superficial views on social-change.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you don't want to talk about how burning down buildings does not organize the proletariat, help in wage conflicts or causes the law of value to be abolished then you don't have to. You don't have dodge the question in the sake of trying to look cool about it the same way that the garbage disposal unit has superficial views on social-change.

I didn't dodge the question. I answered it directly. You can go back and re-read what I said. It's right there. That is my response to the question you asked. It is a stupid question that bears no relevance to discourse on revolutionary practice.

And in any case, you already know what your answer is, so why are you asking it?

[blake 3:17]

(so now it turned to that I of all people are defending anti-imps, what has revleft come too?)

http://fullcontactenlightenment.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/black-hole-singularity.jpeg

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

http://fullcontactenlightenment.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/black-hole-singularity.jpeg

Interestingly, I find the notion of singularity really crucial here.
I think that some of the LeftCom, "But how does [doing x] abolish the law of value?! It doesn't because proletariat!" refrain is problematic in that it posits an ahistorical proletariat in such a way as to "flatten" class, missing its myriad internal contradictions and historical complications. Singularity, then, is a point at which certain generalizations about class collapse, while in collapsing serve to reproduce class.

[synthesis]

Interestingly, I find the notion of singularity really crucial here.
I think that some of the LeftCom, "But how does [doing x] abolish the law of value?! It doesn't because proletariat!" refrain is problematic in that it posits an ahistorical proletariat in such a way as to "flatten" class, missing its myriad internal contradictions and historical complications. Singularity, then, is a point at which certain generalizations about class collapse, while in collapsing serve to reproduce class.

I see you still prefer throwing out random bullshit talking points and styrofoam snipes to actually creating a dialogue with the people you're criticizing. Is this just because they use some mean language? Perhaps things might be more civil if these discussions didn't always end with you calling people white supremacists and then abandoning the thread.

You keep insisting that the ultraleft viewpoint is "reductionist" and "ahistorical" and yet you're not actually providing anything anyone can debate. For all your talk of "generalizations," you're generalizing the issue pretty well yourself. Every time you do bring up some "evidence" - by which I just mean something specific and political that happened at some point - you are presented with a counter-narrative and then you go back to repeating this academic pocket polo verbatim. Don't just start a troll thread and then sit back and cheerlead from the sidelines.

[Red HalfGuard]

What does practical anti-anti-imperialism look like?


Imperialism.

[Red HalfGuard]

hey you know what i'm off to the philippines again next year maybe i'll do the jungle maoist thing and extract revolutionary taxes from provincials or some shit, gotta let the "existing communist leadership within countries facing imperialist assault" take the lead!

God I hope so, would be the most anticapitalist thing you've ever done in your life.

[Per Levy]

Imperialism.

thank you for this wonderful post to an allready wonderful thread, its not like "anti anti-imperialism" is a slander tgdu made up.

[Devrim]

(so now it turned to that I of all people are defending anti-imps, what has revleft come too?)

Perhaps it is because you politics are not so different from theirs. They pick a side in these conflicts, and you pick another one while both trying to dress it up with left jargon.

Devrim

[hashem]

there is no such thing as "anti-anti-imperialism". true anti-imperialism is one thing and serving fascist regimes is another thing. we shouldn't mistake them. imperialism is a system which baatists, islamists and remanents of eastern bloc are some parts of it.

[blake 3:17]

Interestingly, I find the notion of singularity really crucial here.
I think that some of the LeftCom, "But how does [doing x] abolish the law of value?! It doesn't because proletariat!" refrain is problematic in that it posits an ahistorical proletariat in such a way as to "flatten" class, missing its myriad internal contradictions and historical complications.

Ummm... The Black Hole Singularity thing was a joke. Maybe not a very good one.

The description of Left Communism as flattening is an interesting one, and seems pretty accurate to me. It may be both its strength and weakness. I'm perhaps overly familiar with parts of the Left which aim at being "strategic" while accomplishing very little.

[blake 3:17]

And to be fair -- most theory flattens. That's part of its function -- figure out what's important and move from there. The problem with that is that it skips the mess that reality is.

I feel an affinity to thinkers like Raymond Williams, Cornel West and Deleuze & Guattari who address basic injustices, but let the messiness in. Williams is often ignored as some kind of simpleton, when in fact he was a very avant garde thinker, who came from the working class, got schooled in high Academia, and worked for years teaching workers. He spoke plainly, not stupidly.

One of my favourite bits from Deleuze is from a letter where he talks about how he and Guattari would have made a good sumo wrestler -- Deleuze was still and glacial and Guattari hopped and bounced and bended.

Back to the basic question -- I think there's different views from people with similar values depending on situation on their geographic location. I get hit up for donations to Israel through various charities on a pretty much daily basis. Books about Arabs and Islam have been banned by school boards. I'm well aware of the history of anti-Semitism here -- an organization of which I was a part of (it had started as a Yiddish CP friendship solidarity social thing) had been one of the few providers of graves to non-religious Jews for many many years. It was the first victim of the Padlock laws under the proto-fascist Duplessis regime in Quebec.

Within international BDS I take a certain pride that friends have been strong fighters for the campaign and fierce opponents of anti-Semitism within it.

Back to where I was on theory: I suppose the basic problem is trying to fit reality to meet one's gaze.

We have to decide what to look at, what to talk about, what to do and for effective action, decide what to do and say in advance.

The book which may have affected me the most in the past few years has been James Scott's Seeing Like A State which examines the serious problems of benevolent(sorta?) and overly centralized state planning. While it focuses on the state, he is equally critical of the market as a dictatorial force. While it has been read a purely negative critique, it's not.

I should try to write something up on it in the next while...

[Comrade Jandar]

I agree with many Left communist positions. Capitalism, rather than homogenizing the proletariat, seems to have increasingly stratified it. Anti-imperialism and internationalism in the strict left-communist sense are different solutions to this problem. Both have the potential to (unintentionally) support the non-communist positions of nationalism and chauvinism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Ummm... The Black Hole Singularity thing was a joke. Maybe not a very good one.

For the record, I think it was a very good joke. Like all the best, it was an irreverent, and apparently silly, take with a truthful kernel.


The description of Left Communism as flattening is an interesting one, and seems pretty accurate to me. It may be both its strength and weakness. I'm perhaps overly familiar with parts of the Left which aim at being "strategic" while accomplishing very little.

. . . and again, I think this is what makes Left Communism interesting. In a way, it offers a critique that could serve as a necessary counter-point to an anti-imperialism that lacks nuance along similar lines (both positing an essentially static and bi-polar class relation). So, while I'm sympathetic to a critique that says, "Well, supporting the Kim dictatorship is no better than supporting the American ruling class," (as put forward repeatedly by LeftComs in this thread), it seems to me that when this reaches the point of saying, "Well, what's worthwhile about communist attacks on NATO military targets?" its absurdity becomes pretty apparent - even to those like TAT or Sasha who would agree that a politics of "anti-imperialism" that glorifies bourgeois dictatorships is deeply flawed.

Re: Synthesis

I'm sorry for not doing a better job of engaging with your posts. It's difficult in that, when presented with real-life scenarios you cry, ". . . a ton of action without an ounce of theory is worth nothing at all," but when offered theoretical responses you accuse me of "academic pocket polo". Combined insinuations that I'm "a toddler," and your absolute refusal to engage with the question at hand, it's pretty difficult.

Your insistence that "What is to be done?" is somehow an unfair question to ask of a Left Communist strikes me as wildly shirking responsibility vis-a-vis questions of leadership. If communists can't translate their theory in to meaningful responses to specific conditions, I have to wonder what good communists are at all.

[synthesis]

I'm sorry for not doing a better job of engaging with your posts. It's difficult in that, when presented with real-life scenarios you cry, ". . . a ton of action without an ounce of theory is worth nothing at all," but when offered theoretical responses you accuse me of "academic pocket polo". Combined insinuations that I'm "a toddler," and your absolute refusal to engage with the question at hand, it's pretty difficult.

Your insistence that "What is to be done?" is somehow an unfair question to ask of a Left Communist strikes me as wildly shirking responsibility vis-a-vis questions of leadership. If communists can't translate their theory in to meaningful responses to specific conditions, I have to wonder what good communists are at all.

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? I don't understand why you go out of your way to provoke these arguments and then try to scamper off to the moral high ground as soon as things get heated. Maybe you blame me personally for the surfeit of posters who have been calling bullshit on your nationalist politics.

I also don't understand what you mean by "my refusal to engage with the question at hand." Your question contains implicit assumptions that have been repeatedly challenged with no response from you.

Indeed, your characterization of the argument as "insisting that left-communists shouldn't be asked what they do about imperialism or national liberation" doesn't make any sense. It has been pointed out over and over to you that left-communists don't see the picking of sides in inter-imperial conflicts, or between domestic and foreign bourgeoisies, as a priority.

So, if I had to pick one of the dozens of counter-arguments from this thread that you have conveniently ignored, it would be this:


First I think you should explain why it is that socialists need to do anything, outside of the context of working towards international working class revolution.

If you want to have a productive discussion, you have to first explain your position on that. That's the most basic of the problematic assumptions in your question.

[synthesis]

Also:


It's difficult in that, when presented with real-life scenarios you cry, ". . . a ton of action without an ounce of theory is worth nothing at all," but when offered theoretical responses you accuse me of "academic pocket polo".

Let's clarify this. You have not offered any "theoretical responses" to any posts in this thread. The "academic pocket polo" comment was regarding a post you made that was in response to a neutral joke post by blake 3:17 which you used to weasel your way back into the discussion without having to respond to anything anyone actually said.

But honestly, no matter what happens next, I think I can claim this as a victory as long as you stop trying to bully people out of taking left-communist positions on nationalism via brashly calling them "white supremacists" and "imperialist lackeys."

[blake 3:17]

Let's clarify this. You have not offered any "theoretical responses" to any posts in this thread. The "academic pocket polo" comment was regarding a post you made that was in response to a neutral joke post by blake 3:17 which you used to weasel your way back into the discussion without having to respond to anything anyone actually said.

But honestly, no matter what happens next, I think I can claim this as a victory as long as you stop trying to bully people out of taking left-communist positions on nationalism via brashly calling them "white supremacists" and "imperialist lackeys."

My post was meant as a joke -- maybe rather anxiously because of Technocracy Gone Wild -- but also seriously in that Sasha and I have argued over "anti-imperialism", while having friendly and comradely discussions and communications.

I went through the thread and besides criticizing people, all you talk about is class struggle and opposition to class collaboration with no examples, no forms.

Maybe a theoretical defeat of TGDU is some kind of victory. A weird one, but please do enjoy.

[synthesis]

I went through the thread and besides criticizing people, all you talk about is class struggle and opposition to class collaboration with no examples, no forms.

Well, I'm not really sure what would be a "satisfactory" answer to you here. We obviously have different priorities and in that way I'm not sure how much common ground there is going to be in this discussion. It's more of a platform to expand on the differing attitudes toward imperialism and in that respect it's sort of a shame that the anti-imperialist camp doesn't have someone better at debating than TGDU to express those viewpoints.

But on the other hand, I also remember you as being someone with social democratic politics who tries to bully people out of defending their position by accusing them of bigotry and other actionable offenses. So maybe I'm wasting my time trying to justify something to you here.

[GerrardWinstanley]

there is no such thing as "anti-anti-imperialism". true anti-imperialism is one thing and serving fascist regimes is another thing. we shouldn't mistake them. imperialism is a system which baatists, islamists and remanents of eastern bloc are some parts of it.Interesting cherry-picking. Are respectable currents of the Left (particularly in the West) known for being more resistant to the conservative capture of their politics and protest movements than any of the former?