Do you support US bombing in Syria? [Archive]

Revolver

9th October 2014, 18:01

No. Like Sasha, I sympathize with the Kurds as well as the Syrian opposition, but the U.S. airstrikes are not about liberation from their oppressors. The Syrian Civil Defense is already criticizing the civilian casualties (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/04/syria-aid-workers-airstri_n_5923364.html) and the US airstrikes as counterproductive, even as the US refuses to "corroborate" civilian casualties and admits that it has relaxed the standard of "near certainty" for civilian deaths (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/syria-airstrikes-civilians_n_5913944.html), because Syria is not an area that is "outside...active hostilities." At the same time, concocted or camouflaged "imminent threats" like the Khorasan Group (Greenwald thinks it is an invention (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/28/u-s-officials-invented-terror-group-justify-bombing-syria/) for domestic purposes, Woodward suggests (http://warincontext.org/2014/09/29/glenn-greenwalds-khorasan-conspiracy-theory-misses-the-point/) it is simply a unit of Jabhat al-Nusra and that the administration was being sensitive to the perception of Syrian opposition groups by inventing a new classification). My own take is that the US was doing both, but that the real reason that JAN is being targeted is because the Saudis and the US prefer less independent Islamist opposition, and that most signs point to an attempt to isolate and diminish JAN (http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/09/6102/spotlight-isis-battles-intensify-jabhat-al-nusra/). Admittedly they are extremists, although I don't know that the Islamic Front would end up being much different. In any event, that isn't working out: Syrians opposed to Assad are already seething at the apparent support for the regime over JAN (http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/10/6209/syrias-wartime-dynamics-u-s-strikes-face-pushback-fallout/), but as Aron Lund points out elsewhere, the Islamic Front is in many ways more extreme in its view of political Islam (http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=54233) than the Muslim Brotherhood, making it difficult to see what exactly the US/Saudi goal is here. Of course, Islamic Front supporters and other Syrian Sunni Muslims have their own reasons for opposing ISIS (http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/10/6175/aleppo-residents-struggle-fight-isis-remain-wary-u-s-strikes/), namely the organization's use of takfir to label supporters of other opposition groups "infidels."

Anyway, the point is that the bombing is playing out like previous US interventions: a humanitarian disaster that serves no clear strategic purpose beyond fattening the coffers of defense contractors.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

9th October 2014, 18:07

All right, who's the jackass who voted "yes?"

Anyway, I'm affiliated with Students for a Democratic Society, which, in its current incarnation, is affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!). I'm a Leninist with an interest in the Juche Idea. And no, I can't think of any time in history that the U.S. bombed something with the honest intent to liberate anyone.

Geiseric

9th October 2014, 18:13

Fuck no. The Syrian opposition is a US proxy. Anybody who supports that, which includes Al Quaeda, supports imperialism. The US has no right to intervene anywhere in the world, unconditionally.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

9th October 2014, 18:26

I support IS fighters getting blown up before they can kill innocent people, and I can sympathize with any Kurdish fighter or civilian in Kobani who celebrate ISIS tanks and positions getting hit from the sky. Yet ISIS itself is a reaction to previous American intervention and of the Salafist ideology of many of America's allies. If we understand that America has other interests in the area aside from stopping ISIS violence, we see why intervention should be opposed.

I don't have a tendency or a party, those are just my thoughts.

The Syrian opposition is a US proxy. Anybody who supports that, which includes Al Quaeda, supports imperialism. The US has no right to intervene anywhere in the world, unconditionally.

I disagree, the US wishes the Syrian opposition were its proxy. Its opposed to ISIS and JAN, it doesn't trust much of the FSA (though it seems happy to give them arms anyways) and it seems uninterested in the fate of the PYD.

Tim Cornelis

9th October 2014, 19:01

I'm a Leninist with an interest in the Juche Idea.

This explains a lot.

Fuck no. The Syrian opposition is a US proxy. Anybody who supports that, which includes Al Quaeda, supports imperialism. The US has no right to intervene anywhere in the world, unconditionally.

Al Qaida affiliated groups in Syria are being and have been targeted by US airstrikes.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

9th October 2014, 19:02

Voted no. Devrim, not to derail your thread but have you encountered anyone with pro-Isis sentiments in your day to day life there?

Bala Perdida

9th October 2014, 19:02

No. Why would anybody vote yes? Bombs are inprecise tools of genocide. Especially the ones these NATO war criminals have access to. I am unaffiliated.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

9th October 2014, 19:40

This explains a lot.

What I imagine it explaining is why I'm a member of two Juche-groups, have an album of north Korean posters, and describe my interest in Juche in my political profile, my forum profile, and in my introductory thread.

I'm glad I could help clear it up for you.

9th October 2014, 19:45

So, who posted yes and why?

I posted no and although we as a group have not taken a position on this yet, I very much doubt we'd go in favor...

Devrim

9th October 2014, 20:35

No. Why would anybody vote yes?

Well two people have. To be honest I suspected it would be more. Here in Turkey the Kurdish nationalists, and much of the left are calling for intervention. People are dying on the streets for it. As far as I can see most of the foreign left has lined up with the PKK. I was just wondering how far they had taken it.

Devrim, not to derail your thread but have you encountered anyone with pro-Isis sentiments in your day to day life there?

Actually openly pro-ISIS sentiments, no not personally. I'm sure that lots of people have them though although not so much in my social circles. Their are reports that up to 10% of ISIS fıghters are Turks. People I know have said they know of people from Ankara who went to join them.

I think it helps if you think of them as just another nationalist/sectarian militia, and not the demon they have become in the media. There has been horrific violence committed against Arab Sunni Muslims, in Iraq by the Shia militias and in Syria by the state. I think that there are a significant number of Sunnis who see ISIS as protecting them against sectarian attacks.

Devrim

bricolage

10th October 2014, 01:03

Well two people have. To be honest I suspected it would be more. Here in Turkey the Kurdish nationalists, and much of the left are calling for intervention. People are dying on the streets for it. As far as I can see most of the foreign left has lined up with the PKK. I was just wondering how far they had taken it.
Are they actually calling for intervention? I ask because I saw a statement on my facebook (I think from a Kurdish group in Turkey, I can't remember) that was pretty adamant that what they were calling for was 1. Turkey to stop support ISIS and 2. Turkey to open the border so that Kurds can cross over and join the fighting against ISIS. But that they didn't want Turkish intervention as that would just be lead to a military takeover of the area. Maybe their line is different on US/EU intervention.

Illegalitarian

10th October 2014, 01:13

I stand in solidarity with the revolutionary Kurdish movements in Rojava and everyone else fighting for their self-determination against the islamo-fascists of ISIS

I do not support un-earnest intervention by NATO, foolishly trying to feign concern over terrorism while clearly only to protect its own interests.

If it's anything the 20th century taught us about western foreign policy, it's the fact that the US and her allies care as much about human rights and suffering as Pol Pot did.

Atsumari

10th October 2014, 02:46

I voted no because bombing as a military doctrine is a complete failure, but I believe the U.S. has a responsibility to clean up the mess they left in Iraq which I am not sure if they can. The Kurds especially do not deserve to be the victims and janitors of the current situation.

Lily Briscoe

10th October 2014, 03:34

And on that note, I think that a lot of the pro-intervention sentiment, on the American left at least (and my impression is that this is also the case elsewhere), is couched in the language of humanitarianism. So with that in mind, it seems unlikely to me - when asked point-blank "do you support the US bombing of Syria?" - that a lot of these people would respond affirmatively, even when that is the logical conclusion of the arguments and analysis they are putting forward.

I could be wrong, but I suspect if you had framed the poll question differently (say, "do you support US military efforts aimed at stamping out ISIS in Syria?"), you'd have ended up with significantly different results.

Art Vandelay

10th October 2014, 04:08

Devrim

10th October 2014, 04:56

I could be wrong, but I suspect if you had framed the poll question differently (say, "do you support US military efforts aimed at stamping out ISIS in Syria?"), you'd have ended up with significantly different results.

Yes, I think you are very right. If I'd added something about protecting female Kurdish libertarian revolutionaries, it probably would have got even more votes.

Devrim

Devrim

10th October 2014, 04:58

but I believe the U.S. has a responsibility to clean up the mess they left in Iraq...

God save us from US responsibility.

Devrim

Devrim

10th October 2014, 05:02

Are they actually calling for intervention?

Yes, they are. Salih Muslim explains it in English in this interview: http://civiroglu.net/2014/09/23/pyd_airstrikes/

Devrim

MagÃ³n

10th October 2014, 05:59

No, but only because I knew that airstrikes wouldn't do a thing, when trying to fight ISIS and those like them. And with all these reports coming out recently, saying how ineffective the airstrikes have been against ISIS targets, I feel it's all just a big waste of time.

ISIS should be stopped, but the way nations are going about it, isn't working and won't work.

The Red Star Rising

10th October 2014, 09:23

ISIS/ISIL/whatever the fuck it wants to call itself now and Assad need to go but I'm pretty sure America will be America and set up some new dysfunctional slapdash job of a state in their place. Ideally I'd want the Syrian people to win and set up a state of their own accord after giving the boot to all the jackals tearing at them, but happy endings are a rare thing. :(

Palmares

10th October 2014, 10:34

All right, who's the jackass who voted "yes"?

Can spambots vote? :lol:

Otherwise... I'm guessing restricted people can't vote...

DOOM

10th October 2014, 21:39

No. Why would anybody vote yes? Bombs are inprecise tools of genocide. Especially the ones these NATO war criminals have access to. I am unaffiliated.

Oh nose, a "genocide" against ISIS. Bloody western impriualists!!!1
Really, you don't have to affirm these bombings, but try at least to make a good point.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th October 2014, 21:45

Because explosions ask you for your political affiliation before killing you.

Also ISIS lives on the Moon.

Creative Destruction

10th October 2014, 21:49

No.

DOOM

10th October 2014, 21:54

Because explosions ask you for your political affiliation before killing you.

Also ISIS lives on the Moon.

Merely killing doesnt fit the definition of genocide at all. So unless he's able to explain to me how in Syria there's a genocide happening caused by NATO-bombs, I won't refrain from saying that this is a moralist way of arguing.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th October 2014, 22:03

Of course it's not a genocide, that's an extremely colloquial way of talking (but then, what ISIS is doing is not genocide either). Bombing still means killing fucktonnes of workers for the benefit of an imperialist power, whatever fantastic delusions about "targeted bombing" people might have.

DOOM

10th October 2014, 22:05

Illegalitarian

10th October 2014, 22:21

Whenever something like this happens a small portion of the left always supports intervention in the name of humanitarianism, but everyone should know by now that NATO could give less of a shit about genocide or mass human rights violations and only use these excuses as a weapon to wield against their political enemies.

Remember when the Rwandan genocide, one the most systematic and brutal genocide of the 20th century, was all but ignored only for NATO to leap for joy at the chance to finish of Yugoslavia due to its "genocide" against what, 30 people?

It's a sham. Imperialist intervention almost always happens strictly in the name of political interests and never has the happy side effects some think it will have.

Slavic

10th October 2014, 22:26

Rosa Partizan

10th October 2014, 22:28

DOOM

10th October 2014, 22:31

Illegalitarian

10th October 2014, 22:36

would you elaborate on that? Otherwise I'll have to assume you're one of those Milosevic "anti-imperialist the Western powers are responsible blahblah"-douchebags.

I would like to thank you for giving me the benefit of doubt before jumping down my throat like a cretin. That's more than I can say for the other two.

I'm not trying to paint the atrocities of Milosevic in a positive light at all, far from it, but the Racak massacre was what sparked NATO intervention and somewhere around 30-45 people were killed. This was the act NATO strategists considered "too far" while almost entirely ignoring Rwanda a few years prior.

You guys are conflating the Bosnian atrocities with the "genocide" in Kosovo. Any number of civilians being massacred is horrible, but calling this an act of genocide was simply wrong and insulting to both the Bosniaks and Rwandans who both suffered extermination in that decade.

Illegalitarian

10th October 2014, 22:45

To be clear: I'm talking Kosovo war, not Bosnian genocide. Give me a fucking break guys, jeez :glare:

Rosa Partizan

10th October 2014, 22:45

I would like to think you for giving me the benefit of doubt before jumping down my throat like a cretin. That's more than I can say for the other two.

I'm not trying to paint the atrocities of Milosevic in a positive light at all, far from it, but the Racak massacre was what sparked NATO intervention and somewhere around 30-45 people were killed. This was the act NATO strategists considered "too far" while almost entirely ignoring Rwanda a few years prior.

I would prefer not to play off Ruanda against Yugoslavia or vice versa. The NATO failed Ruanda BIG BIG TIME. Yugoslavia in the 90ies can hardly be compared. You could call Racak the trigger or anything, but def not THE reason. The Western powers watched and did nothing when the only European Genocide after WWII took place only a few years ago. I remember one member of the Green Party said "We can't allow a second Auschwitz to happen". This was a pretty stupid comparison, but it could be summarized as "we failed Bosnia, we are under pressure now to act".

Црвена

10th October 2014, 22:47

I do, obviously, hate IS and Assad and all those other ultra-reactionaries reincarnating 17th century England in the Middle East and using the usual bullshit religious excuses to justify power-grabbing and murdering dissenters. But I think the West should just be sending money and weapons to the Kurds and moderate rebels and humanitarian aid to civilians, not going in and killing more people. We all know what fun starts when the US tries to "spread democracy."

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th October 2014, 22:51

But I think the West should just be sending money and weapons to the Kurds and moderate rebels and humanitarian aid to civilians, not going in and killing more people.

That is literally how this entire thing started. I'm not even talking about Syria anymore, this has ties to U.S. "humanitarian intervention" by way of arming "acceptable" rebels in Afghanistan.

And sure, humanitarian aid is a lovely idea. It's just that it often comes with American troops - as in Haiti, in Liberia and so on.

Even if you think the Western bourgeois governments would want to help, the best thing they can do would be to go away.

Illegalitarian

10th October 2014, 22:52

I would prefer not to play off Ruanda against Yugoslavia or vice versa. The NATO failed Ruanda BIG BIG TIME. Yugoslavia in the 90ies can hardly be compared. You could call Racak the trigger or anything, but def not THE reason. The Western powers watched and did nothing when the only European Genocide after WWII took place only a few years ago. I remember one member of the Green Party said "We can't allow a second Auschwitz to happen". This was a pretty stupid comparison, but it could be summarized as "we failed Bosnia, we are under pressure now to act".

I'm not playing them off against each other. The Bosniaks faced a systematic extermination just as the Rwandans did, both were terrible atrocities that should not have happened.

I was merely using both in their juxtaposition to NATO's false sense of humanitarianism to make a point about the west not actually giving a shit about human extermination and only intervening when it suits their political aims.

I can see how I kind of sounded like a horrible person if you thought I was talking about Bosnia when I said "30 people", but again, I was referring to Kosovo, which I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would call the massacre that sparked intervention there a genocide aside from NATO lackies, and Racak was the states reason for the intervention.

Slavic

10th October 2014, 22:55

And sure, humanitarian aid is a lovely idea. It's just that it often comes with American troops - as in Haiti, in Liberia and so on.

Not to mention as soon as the food shipments leave NATO/US control, typically the local group with the most guns grabs up the shipments from the civilian population, a la Somalia.

Illegalitarian

10th October 2014, 23:01

The US doesn't have a good sense of "moderate" when it comes to funding opposition...

http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/pinochet21.jpg

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th October 2014, 23:03

Not to mention as soon as the food shipments leave NATO/US control, typically the local group with the most guns grabs up the shipments from the civilian population, a la Somalia.

If the humanitarian aid even exists.

In Liberia, the military was sent first, with promises to establish hospitals... at some time in the future.

Seriously, people trusting the imperialists to protect people at this point is like someone hiring John Wayne Gacy for their kid's birthday party because he promised it will be the bestest birthday party ever.

boyhominid

11th October 2014, 02:58

No.

blake 3:17

11th October 2014, 04:40

Canada's parliament has voted to bomb Iraq and send special forces to contain the Islamic State --- ugh -- all so stupid. That was a week ago. Vote was 157 - 134. Opposition to the "mission" wasn't very clear -- some of it was regional where the Aghanistan war had been most unpopular and some was based on party lines and some was based on the silliness of the mission. The PM here has been calling the Islamic State a threat to "Canadian families" which some of his supporters have been going wtf??? over.

tachosomoza

11th October 2014, 05:09

No bombing. ISIS sucks, but the US created the conditions that facilitated its rise and the US meddling in the Middle East again is going to harm much, much more than it helps. Imperialism doesn't solve the problems of imperialism.

trickster

11th October 2014, 07:30

No, and especially not with drones. I can't believe we as a country even tolerate those, they're inhumane. They kill civilians way more often than they actually help fight terrorism.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th October 2014, 10:17

So, who are the five people who voted "yes"?

Црвена

11th October 2014, 11:34

That is literally how this entire thing started. I'm not even talking about Syria anymore, this has ties to U.S. "humanitarian intervention" by way of arming "acceptable" rebels in Afghanistan.

And sure, humanitarian aid is a lovely idea. It's just that it often comes with American troops - as in Haiti, in Liberia and so on.

Even if you think the Western bourgeois governments would want to help, the best thing they can do would be to go away.

I mean actual humanitarian aid - funding charity work and refugee camps and hospitals and so on. Not a military intervention disguised as humanitarian aid. But you're right, perhaps it's too optimistic of me to think that the bourgeois governments are good for anything.

Lord Testicles

11th October 2014, 11:36

So, who are the five people who voted "yes"?

Cowards or trolls.

Either way they don't appear very confident since no-one has tried justified a "yes" vote so far.

freecommunist

11th October 2014, 21:49

Slavic

11th October 2014, 22:09

No, and especially not with drones. I can't believe we as a country even tolerate those, they're inhumane. They kill civilians way more often than they actually help fight terrorism.

Why 'especially' drones? How is a drone with a hellfire and a f-15 with a hellfire any different?

Lord Testicles

11th October 2014, 22:24

Why 'especially' drones? How is a drone with a hellfire and a f-15 with a hellfire any different?

I imagine drones have an aspect of psychological warfare about them. A constant nagging fear that a missile might appear out of a silent, clear blue sky will probably make people anxious to say the least. Obviously, there is little difference if you die from a traditional air strike or a drone strike but you know when an F-15 is circling overhead whereas a drone could have been circling over your house for the past week and you wouldn't know anything about it.

John Lennin

11th October 2014, 22:32

YES!
Why? Because fuck the IS! Bombing those bastards is applied antifascism.

Tim Cornelis

11th October 2014, 22:37

Like anti-imperialism, antifascism is only antifascism when it advances communism. Capitalism births 'fascism'. If it doesn't challenge capitalism, it doesn't challenge fascism structurally.

tachosomoza

12th October 2014, 03:43

YES!
Why? Because fuck the IS! Bombing those bastards is applied antifascism.

No, it's applied imperialism. Bomb ISIS and replace them with ExxonMobil and Coca-Cola.

bricolage

12th October 2014, 04:15

I imagine drones have an aspect of psychological warfare about them. A constant nagging fear that a missile might appear out of a silent, clear blue sky will probably make people anxious to say the least. Obviously, there is little difference if you die from a traditional air strike or a drone strike but you know when an F-15 is circling overhead whereas a drone could have been circling over your house for the past week and you wouldn't know anything about it.
I'm not sure exactly but I think that people are normally aware of the type of drones that are able to drop missiles because they're not really as covert as surveillance ones. The psychological stuff I'm aware of is stuff like Gaza where people have reported going insane from the constant buzzing overhead.

I guess this is off topic to the thread but I think there's something a bit weird about the 'drones are much worse than other bombs' crowd.

The person who first mentioned it wrote that 'they kill civilians way more often than they actually help fight terrorism' but I mean that's applicable to all Western interventions.

Definitely the 20th Century was a time period that marked a shift in war from something that predominantly only killed soldiers to something that more and more involved civilians, but this was long before drones came into existence. I don't know enough stats to know whether this shift has been exacerbated since they started being used but I doubt it has been.

It does seem that pressing a button from many miles away is likely to make your pretty detached from who is on the other end of it and there have been those cases of drone pilots saying they couldn't distinguish between a dog and a child but c'mon where pre-drone soldiers really that good at protecting civilians? And the detachment thing isn't anything new, you can read testimonies of WW2 pilots talking about it being 'like remote control'.

Anti-drone rhetoric comes a lot of of Islamist group and sympathisers and is mostly used to call the West cowards, i.e. why don't you fight me like a man sort of stuff. In other places it's often similar and seems to be linked to memories of when killing was glorious and you looked a man in the eye and sent him to the afterlife... but we know that's all bullshit.

For sure drone technology is terrifying but I'm suspicious of those who are really adamantly opposed to it over all else because I do think it veers into romanticising pre-drone warfare. War is always horrific and it's never glorious and civilians always die.

John Lennin

12th October 2014, 11:19

No, it's applied imperialism. Bomb ISIS and replace them with ExxonMobil and Coca-Cola.

So you would have opposed the imperialist aggression during ww2 as well?

Lord Testicles

12th October 2014, 11:29

I'm not sure exactly but I think that people are normally aware of the type of drones that are able to drop missiles because they're not really as covert as surveillance ones. The psychological stuff I'm aware of is stuff like Gaza where people have reported going insane from the constant buzzing overhead.

I think even the silent ones can kill you since some people now report to be afraid of "clear, blue skies" which suggests they didn't know the drones were there when they killed members of their family.

K4NRJoCNHIs

I know it's a comedy show but I think it highlights some things quite well.

Just to be clear, I don't think that drones are worse than any other instrument of war, I just think there's a psychological aspect to them that is often overlooked.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th October 2014, 11:42

So you would have opposed the imperialist aggression during ww2 as well?

That was the position of all Trotskyist and left communist groups during the Second World War (although Trotskyists called for defence of the Soviet Union as well, which the communist left did not).

Again, quoting the occasionally orthodox Mandel:

"Now if we look at the problem of World War II from that more dialectical, more correct Leninist point of view, we have to say that it was a very complicated business indeed. I would say, at the risk of putting it a bit too strongly, that the Second World War was in reality a combination of five different wars. That may seem an outrageous proposition at first sight, but I think closer examination will bear it out.
First, there was an inter-imperialist war, a war between the Nazi, Italian, and Japanese imperialists on the one hand, and the Anglo-American-French imperialists on the other hand. That was a reactionary war, a war between different groups of imperialist powers. We had nothing to do with that war, we were totally against it."

Scheveningen

12th October 2014, 12:45

So you would have opposed the imperialist aggression during ww2 as well?

Are you one of those people who randomly compares any event to the Munich Conference or the Holocaust or well, whatever you prefer, and then uses that to justify the most atrocious actions?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

12th October 2014, 13:01

No.

Not affiliated to any party or organization. Libertarian Marxist/Marxian anarcho-communist/whatever.

ChrisK

12th October 2014, 13:09

Voted no. Sympathetic to the International Socialist Organization. Here's an article written for their paper:
http://socialistworker.org/2014/10/07/the-case-against-obamas-new-war

I do, however, take great offense to this:

No. Why would anybody vote yes? Bombs are inprecise tools of genocide. Especially the ones these NATO war criminals have access to. I am unaffiliated.

These are good old American bombs. They can hit any school, hospital or wedding with absolute precision.

Invader Zim

12th October 2014, 14:30

(but then, what ISIS is doing is not genocide either).

Tell that to tortured and gang-raped Yazidi women and children and their murdered relatives.

RA89

12th October 2014, 14:42

Yes.

I want as much help as possible for those being murdered, tortured and raped by ISIS.

Not affiliated with any party or particular tendency (more due to a lack of knowledge than anything else).

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th October 2014, 15:28

Tell that to tortured and gang-raped Yazidi women and children and their murdered relatives.

And this differs from the situation before the bombing how? The Glorious People's Syrian Islamist Revolution with Anarchist and Art-Based Groups (trademark of RevLeft.com) has always had a problematic attitude to ethnoreligious minorities in Syria and Iraq, yet people here started finding this problematic only after the US turned against them. Excuse me for not being convinced. RevLeft members are doing what they always do - taking the side of their imperialist governments.

motion denied

12th October 2014, 15:47

People actually voted yes.

Zoroaster

12th October 2014, 15:55

No bombings, no war.

ISIS sucks, and I won't support them because "muh anti-imperialism", but any intervention by the U.S. or any other power is unjust.

Invader Zim

12th October 2014, 16:34

And this differs from the situation before the bombing how? The Glorious People's Syrian Islamist Revolution with Anarchist and Art-Based Groups (trademark of RevLeft.com) has always had a problematic attitude to ethnoreligious minorities in Syria and Iraq, yet people here started finding this problematic only after the US turned against them. Excuse me for not being convinced. RevLeft members are doing what they always do - taking the side of their imperialist governments.

What are you not convinced by? The fact that there is a campaign of ethnic and religious cleansing occuring in ISIS occupied zones? Are you attempting that this is quantitavely and qualitatively identical to the situation before 3 January 2014? Is your argument that because there are historical ethno-religious minorities in the region that there has not been a considerable escalation of those tensions, which have now moved into full blown mass rape and mass murder? Either way stop apologising for, or attempting to relativise, mass rape and murder.

The worrying thing is that the urge for members of the left to jump to show their true believer status as right-on anti-imperialists, results in the kinds of drivel you're posting. You know that you can oppose bombing campaigns while still acknowledging reality. Relativising this doesn't bolster your anti-imerpialist cred.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th October 2014, 16:46

What are you not convinced by? The fact that there is a genocide occuring in ISIS occupied zones?

I'm not convinced that (1) there is sufficient evidence of genocide occurring in the ISIS area; and (2) that people bringing this up are doing so because they've suddenly become concerned for the non-Sunni groups of the region, magically just when the US administration has turned against ISIS.

Is your argument that because there are historical ethno-religious minorities in the region that there has not been a considerable escalation of those tensions, which have now moved into full blown mass rape and mass murder?

I don't even know how to parse that. I am saying that while ISIS was part of that darling of American foreign politics, members of this site weren't overly concerned by the Yazidis and Alawites and Druze. Now, when the bombing has started, we are treated to increasingly fantastic stories about ISIS brutality. If tomorrow the Kurds were to annoy the US enough, there would undoubtedly be stories about PKK brutality - and some of them would be true, of course - but the question is, why now? Why did you ignore them when ignoring them suited American foreign policy and start talking about them when that was no longer the case?

Either way, the worrying thing is that the urge for members of the left to jump to show their true believer status as right-on anti-imperialists, results in the kinds of drivel you're posting. You know that you can oppose bombing campaigns while still acknowledging reality.

Yes, of course, and no one claims that ISIS is anything other than a reactionary gang, but the people who discovered Sunni Islamist sectarianism only recently have a very worrying tendency to oppose the bombing BUT (but support arming Kurds, but think America has a "duty" to "clean up the mess" etc.).

Rafiq

12th October 2014, 17:08

Maybe if the Chinese deformed workers state pursued IS, the Sparts wouldn't have a problem with a campaign against them.

Opposing this out of anti-imperialism alone reflects a deep misunderstanding of what imperialism is. It certainly isn't "big powers invading little ones". That has existed long before imperialism. When Marxists speak of imperialism, we speak of a complicated global social relation of power, and a phrase in capitalist development. Imperialism is always present, the US, by merit of its own existence is always engaging in imperialism - so are countries like Assads Syria and Iran. It is a global phenomena that doesn't amount to intervening in smaller countries.

So US intervention is not a case of imperialism. What does the US have to gain? Why do they want to go back? Why is it better to have troops on the ground occupying a foreign country than have a government which will do what you want for you? IS is a pest to them - not an excuse.

So why should we oppose US intervention? Because a) it dilutes the notion of domestic struggle, and trivializes it. For fucks sake, after Ferguson, and our barbaric institutionally backed prisons of rape and brutality (many of which privatized) - after European politics are slowly degenerating, with the path we're on, who the fuck are we to act like the gleaming mantle of civilization? We might as well be having our own IS in the west too - in the form of the militia movement and European neoFascism.

And b) the glorious saviors and guardians of peace and order there are who? The slave owning Gulf states and pig fucker monarchs like King Abdullah? These are some of the most reactionary and backward places on Earth. I even heard of Iranian intervention too. So who are these guardians? If these are the ones to be savinng the day, IS wins either way. Because the implications are the degeneration and further islamicization of politics in the near east - the caliphate has changed the standards of extremism so now salafi clerics are moderates. Fucking hypocrites here in the US talk about swooping in to save the day with the help of legitimate, recognized states who aren't that much better than IS, just less choppy and more clean with how much blood gets on the street. These are the fuckers who created the fucked up political standard that LED to the emergence of IS!

Trust me, if we were in 1960 and the Eastern Bloc (who would establish some kind of secular left standard of politics) wanted to invade the near east and squash IS, I really wouldn't give a shit. Anti imperialism should not be grounds for opposition here, as if intervention will yield good results but we can't support it because of our anti imperialism. NO, the point is that intervention will NOT yield good results to begin with, anyway.

Rafiq

12th October 2014, 17:13

I have a question for people talking about imperialism: in your mind, was the Mongol empire, or the Ottoman empire (around it's inception) imperialist? Were European crusaders imperialists?

tachosomoza

12th October 2014, 17:41

So you would have opposed the imperialist aggression during ww2 as well?

Yes, I would have. Imperialism is imperialism. WWII was a war of the international bourgeoisie, not a workers' war.

Invader Zim

12th October 2014, 17:53

I'm not convinced that (1) there is sufficient evidence of genocide occurring in the ISIS area;

I guess all those victims must be lying. I didn't get the memo that said that people who have been raped and brutalised are to be ignored or treated with mistrust.

and (2) that people bringing this up are doing so because they've suddenly become concerned for the non-Sunni groups of the region, magically just when the US administration has turned against ISIS.

The US has always been against ISIS. Who do you think the post-2003 invasion insurgency were if not the Mujahideen Shura Council et al? And, of course, the reason why this has flared up so badly is because of the failure of the US led coalition to rebuild the infrastructure in the region following the Iraq war and the general de-stablisation of the region. they created the power vacuum, that ISIS is now attempting to fill.

I am saying that while ISIS was part of that darling of American foreign politics

Which is a product of your fevered imagination. The US has been fighting with ISIS, and its predecessors (including, but not limited to, ISI, MSC, AQI) quite literally for years. Given the general demographic of this board, probably for around half of your life time.

members of this site weren't overly concerned by the Yazidis and Alawites and Druze.

You do realise that the reason that the fates of these groups is an issue is because there has been a massive escalation of violence in the region since 2012 - when the US pulled out the region and ISIS proceeded to orchestrate mass prison breaks across the region to bolster its numbers? The reason why people weren't talking about it until now is because Iraq is now a more violent place than it has been since the height of the insurgency.

Now, when the bombing has started, we are treated to increasingly fantastic stories about ISIS brutality.

Ummm... the reports of genocidal attacks began before the bombing campaign, indeed the reporting is the reason why there is a bombing campaign.

but the question is, why now? Why did you ignore them when ignoring them suited American foreign policy and start talking about them when that was no longer the case?

Sigh. You realise that prior to June this year even generous estimates placed ISIS strength as no more than 3,000 fighters? Nobody paid any attention to them prior to the capture of Mosul because nobody took them seriously until they did and then proceeded to sell civilian women as sex slaves, systematically persecute and murder religious and ethnic groups they disapproved of, and begin waging a vicious and expansionist war in Iraq, Syria and Lebannon literally in just the last three months. Most seem to have believed that IS and most of its allies had been crushed around five years ago and had ceased posing a threat. Recent events have shown that this was an erronious view.

Prior to June, as far as the US and the rest of the world was concerned, even with its prison breaks, ISIS barely existed other than as a small militant fringe group. Why does it supprose you, given that the vast majority of the most significant elements of their military camapign have only occured in the last six months that ISIS has only become a talking point in those last three months?

Do some elementary research.

BUT (but support arming Kurds, but think America has a "duty" to "clean up the mess" etc.).

Who, precisely, has argued any such thing here?

DOOM

12th October 2014, 18:13

Tim Cornelis

12th October 2014, 18:30

Refreshing to see some common sense (Invader Zim) in place of pseudo-conspiracy theories (870).

Maybe if the Chinese deformed workers state pursued IS, the Sparts wouldn't have a problem with a campaign against them.

Or Russia, which they acknowledge to be capitalist, for that matter, as they use Lenin's writings to 'refute' that Russia is imperialist.

Sharia Lawn

12th October 2014, 18:43

Ummm... the reports of genocidal attacks began before the bombing campaign, indeed the reporting is the reason why there is a bombing campaign.

The US is bombing ISIS targets because the government is concerned about genocide and saving the lives of its poor, helpless victims, eh? Next thing we know, you'll be explaining how the US military invaded in 2003 to liberate the Iraqis. Nice leftist view of the world you've got going there.

RA89

12th October 2014, 18:55

Some people give to charity so that they can impress others and receive praise. They will have donated for the wrong reasons. But the poverty-stricken people who receive the aid really don't give a shit if the donator's heart was in the right place.
Likewise I'm sure the people having their friends and families raped, tortured and butchered want help regardless of what the primary intent of the US is (oil etc).

tachosomoza

12th October 2014, 19:13

Invader Zim

12th October 2014, 19:18

The US is bombing ISIS targets because the government is concerned about genocide and saving the lives of its poor, helpless victims, eh? Next thing we know, you'll be explaining how the US military invaded in 2003 to liberate the Iraqis. Nice leftist view of the world you've got going there.

Where did I say that? I said that the US began the bombing campaign in response to the high media coverage of ISIS attrocities. I never suggested that this was because of some overwhelming sense of moral duty on the part of the Obama Administration. There are a whole range of other factors, not least the political damage to the Administration and the US industrial-military-political complex in general if it is perceived to be weak.

Go back, re-read, understand, and shut the fuck up.

Sharia Lawn

12th October 2014, 19:19

Where did I say that? Go back, re-read, understand, and shut the fuck up.

In the portion of your post I quoted you said it. To repeat it:

Ummm... the reports of genocidal attacks began before the bombing campaign, indeed the reporting is the reason why there is a bombing campaign

There is a bombing campaign, you state, because of reports of genocidal attacks.

Invader Zim

12th October 2014, 19:29

In the portion of your post I quoted you said it. To repeat it:

There is a bombing campaign, you state, because of reports of genocidal attacks.

Yes, and no-where do I say:

"The US is bombing ISIS targets because the government is concerned about [my emphasis] genocide and saving the lives of its poor, helpless victims"

I said that the bombing raid has come because of media coverage of the attrocities. That may be because of a sudden understanding of, and desire to address (on the part of the Obama administration), humanitarian concerns. Alternatively, it could merely be a necessarily impetus to re-assert control in the region before it further destablises. It could also be because of the political pressure to be seen to do something. Or perhaps a mixtrue of all three. I made no judgement either way, and you need some elementary lessons in both reading and comprehension before you accuse people of having shitty politics based on statements you are clearly too fucking stupid to understand.

Now, as I said:

Go back, re-read, understand, and shut the fuck up.

kthxbi.

Sharia Lawn

12th October 2014, 19:31

Yes, and no-where do I say:

"The US is bombing ISIS targets because the government is concerned about [my emphasis] genocide and saving the lives of its poor, helpless victims"

I said that the bombing raid has come in responce to media coverage of the attrocities. That may be because of a sudden appriciation, on the part of the Obama administration, for humanitarian concerns. Alternatively, it could merely be a necessarily impetus to re-assert control in the region before it further destablises. It could also be because of the political pressure to be seen to do something. Or perhaps a mixtrue of all three. I made no judgement either way, and you need some elemnetary lessons in both reading and comprehension.

Now, as I said:

Go back, re-read, understand, and shut the fuck up.

kthxbi.

You said the campaign was a response to it, not just that the campaign came after it. If you were writing with the understanding that the O admin is concerned primarily with re-asserting control in the region, it would be acting in response to intelligence reports, not sensationalized media stories. It's okay, though. We all make mis-statements. I appreciate your polite clarification that what you said was not what you intended to convey.

RA89

12th October 2014, 19:32

You realize that bombings don't just kill the "enemy", right? Lots of non combatants are killed in bombings. In some cases, only non combatants are killed.

And if there is no bombing you do realise ISIS will massacre lots more people?

Seems to me like it's

let ISIS kill innocents vs kill ISIS and innocents via collateral damage (ideally this would be as little as possible)

motion denied

12th October 2014, 19:34

The most powerful bourgeois state, our biggest humanitarian ally.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th October 2014, 19:40

I guess all those victims must be lying. I didn't get the memo that said that people who have been raped and brutalised are to be ignored or treated with mistrust.

Apparently you didn't get the memo about applying some critical thinking to situations in which the imperialist powers want to drum up support for their warmongering either. Pity. Perhaps you still believe that Iraqi soldiers bayoneted Kuwaiti children (after all, who are you to treat that Kuwaiti nurse with mistrust)?

I have no doubt that ISIS-Daesh is a reactionary force that has carried out its fair share of sectarian murder and sexual abuse up to rape but that does not mean that one ought to simply accept every allegation made about ISIS.

The US has always been against ISIS. Who do you think the post-2003 invasion insurgency were if not the Mujahideen Shura Council et al? And, of course, the reason why this has flared up so badly is because of the failure of the US led coalition to rebuild the infrastructure in the region following the Iraq war and the general de-stablisation of the region. they created the power vacuum, that ISIS is now attempting to fill.

Did you notice a certain gap in the timeline between the MSC/Islamic State in Iraq period and the present bombings? That would be when the ISIS forces were mostly active in Syria, fighting along JAN and other US-supported outfits against the Assad government.

Which is a product of your fevered imagination. The US has been fighting with ISIS, and its predecessors (including, but not limited to, ISI, MSC, AQI) quite literally for years. Given the general demographic of this board, probably for around half of your life time.

I'm three years younger than you. Well, perhaps in three years I too will forget to view the pronouncements of imperialist powers critically.

You do realise that the reason that the fates of these groups is an issue is because there has been a massive escalation of violence in the region since 2012 - when the US pulled out the region and ISIS proceeded to orchestrate mass prison breaks across the region to bolster its numbers? The reason why people weren't talking about it until now is because Iraq is now a more violent place than it has been since the height of the insurgency.

ISIS is not the only Islamist or the only sectarian group in the region - when the JAN, the comrades-in-arms (sometimes literally!) of ISIS were threatening Alawites and other minorities in Syria, the general response of the brave RevLeft anti-anti-imperialists was to... blame Assad for incidents of sectarian murder of non-Sunnis.

Ummm... the reports of genocidal attacks began before the bombing campaign, indeed the reporting is the reason why there is a bombing campaign.

As Izvestia said, it really takes willful ignorance to think the US was pressured to do something, by any sort of reports. It started bombing because it was in its interest to do so, and the reports of atrocities are a method of sustaining public support for the bombing campaign.

Sigh. You realise that prior to June this year even generous estimates placed ISIS strength as no more than 3,000 fighters? Nobody paid any attention to them prior to the capture of Mosul because nobody took them seriously until they did and then proceeded to sell civilian women as sex slaves, systematically persecute and murder religious and ethnic groups they disapproved of, and begin waging a vicious and expansionist war in Iraq, Syria and Lebannon literally in just the last three months. Most seem to have believed that IS and most of its allies had been crushed around five years ago and had ceased posing a threat. Recent events have shown that this was an erronious view.

How on Earth did you manage to find ISIS in Lebanon?

Prior to June, as far as the US and the rest of the world was concerned, even with its prison breaks, ISIS barely existed other than as a small militant fringe group. Why does it supprose you, given that the vast majority of the most significant elements of their military camapign have only occured in the last six months that ISIS has only become a talking point in those last three months?

Do some elementary research.

And again you manage to miss the point. ISIS is merely one of the many sectarian reactionary groups in the region. Yet as soon as it has managed to tick off the US administration, the average RevLeft member starts treating it as a bogeyman.

Who, precisely, has argued any such thing here?

Read this thread. So far we have at least psycho, Atsumari, and RA89. And that AD fellow whose name escapes me. Not to mention the sheer amount of people who call for arming the PKK.

tachosomoza

12th October 2014, 20:19

And if there is no bombing you do realise ISIS will massacre lots more people?

Seems to me like it's

let ISIS kill innocents vs kill ISIS and innocents via collateral damage (ideally this would be as little as possible)

You sound like a Democrat.

Remus Bleys

12th October 2014, 20:29

I do, obviously, hate IS and Assad and all those other ultra-reactionaries reincarnating 17th century England in the Middle East
What?

and using the usual bullshit religious excuses to justify power-grabbing and murdering dissenters. But I think the West should just be sending money and weapons to the Kurds and moderate rebels and humanitarian aid to civilians, not going in and killing more people. We all know what fun starts when the US tries to "spread democracy."
Suffice to say the PKK has allied themselves with islamists in both the past and present, and it will continue to do so, so in a sense, Kurdish nationalism is also dependent on "bullshit religious excuses."

Not to mention the fact the PKK has a history of internal rape - officers have raped female soldiers, and the de facto leader of this organization has raped a great many women and is pretty open about this. How anarcha-feminist, right? Or racism towards other ethnic minorities, deeming them Kurdish; or should we mention the plans to expel Arabs and non Kurds from an independent Kurdistan?

Your misunderstanding of what exactly imperialism is (which you facetiously call "spreading democracy" - don't worry I understand you don't think this is "real democracy" (tm)) though is the biggest problem with your post. US imperialism is more extensive than simply sending out big guns to fuck shit up, it's about having control in that region, to have it serve as a proxy state (see US funding of Israel). Imperialism will result in bloodshed always but it need not be so outright. If the US were to merely fund the Kurds, this would mean to ensure they are powerful enough that the US doesn't need to bomb, because Kurdish forces do so for them (is this the case? Well it all depends on what the US sees in its best, realpolitik, interests).

Incidentally I think Rafiq is on to something but he's wrong. The fact this is imperialism matters, because of the fact you have to view this situation in its entirety. If it was merely a complete and utter backward ISIS that really wanted to recreate the Caliphate and emulate the Umayyad or Abbasid (and I've no idea if they do or not. ISIS is a weird and complex buncha thugs who attract actual dedicated islamists as well as child rapists as well as ordinary sunni muslims in the region as well as teenage thugs who just want to do donuts with tanks) then arguably the success of the nationalists would lead to a better and more superior outcome. This does not mean support for the nationalists, however.

Why does such mean that? Precisely because it is not the 1960s. Lenin's "Imperialism: The Latest Stage of Capitalism" was and is a fantastic and invariant work, but contrary to what Bordiga said, Camatte was right. It was only ever an introduction, it was incomplete (no matter how correct it was - and like the younger Camatte, I do think Lenin was almost 100% correct, just that it was incomplete). In ww2 the Germans supported the anti colonial revolts, not out of any humanitarian or racialist reasons, but liberating those colonies from British rule would open up new centers of trade and would hurt the British. Later, after the failures of Nazism led to the end of Fascism there stood two great, and usually opposing, powers: the USA and the USSR. Interestingly enough, both supported nationalist movements, and both quickly rushed to recognize these new States whenever possible. Take the Suez Crisis: both the USA and USSR supported Nasser over Israel, France, and England. Why? Because French and English colonial control was inhibiting the trade power of the USA and the USSR. Imperialism destroyed the colonial divisions, but also created new divisions (similar to how capitalism dissolves class and stratification, if only to replace it with a new class system, with new stratification). It just so happened such liberation from colonial power led to the dissolution of the old mode of productions (historically and erroroneously referred to as "semi feudalism") and the improvement of the capacity of production. Such is irrelevant as to why the various groups all supported nationalism/anti-colonialism, what mattered to them was their own imperialist motivations. To the extent that these anti-colonial revolutions performed the actions of colonialism and performed the bourgeois revolution, they should be supported - not by communists because they love the nationalists and capitalists, but because communists are likewise opposed to the bonds of precapitalist despotism, such a notion is self evident in the either the third or second chapter of the Communists Manifesto. Communists cease support for the Capitalist forces whenever a reactionary anti capitalism is destroyed, whenever the Capitalist forces inhibit the development of capitalism, and whenever such forces attack the proletarian.

(an example: in the 20s the Communists in China worked with the Nationalists against the colonists and precapitalist social order (which was supported by the colonialists), in return the nationalists slaughtered the workers. Capitalism always attacks the proletarian, but with the defeat of the world revolution and the triumph of the stalinist counterrevolution (or conversely, the success of the Russian bourgeois revolution) the possibility for a double revolution in China was in effect, nihil (workers rebelling against the nationalists (which the CP had also become) was also to be supported as well). The lesson from this was something already known: colonialism has injected capitalism into various regions, but kept precapitalist barriers in place, thus resulting in a situation where the nationalists are to be supported as a force that will aid the proletarian revolutions ascendance as it destroys past barriers and allows for an increases the capacity of production - the failure of the nationalists and communists to do this was a result of dependence on the peasantry and making a sort of "compromise" with them. However, the nationalists also proved a threat to the working class as it meant the strengthening of their power, thus national liberation which limited itself to a purely national (later, an imperialist) event and did not reach out to the workers internationally would mean that such Revolutions no longer had the possibility of being proletarian double revolutions, that would transform the bourgeois revolution to a proletarian one. In China, this was shown by not international cooperation of the proletarian but of the national cooperation with the bourgeoisie. Europe's first bourgeois revolutions could only be bourgeoisie revolutions, which were to be supported for reasons I've already stated. In the undeveloped world, bourgeois revolutions were to be supported, for the same reasons, but because of the possibility for a communist revolution, what was to be supported contra the booj rev was the prole one. Unfortunately though, the proletarian revolution failed, and all we were left with were the Romantic Revolutions - which were simultaneously revolutionary and counterrevolutionary.)

Today, American and Russian imperialism are still of the exact same nature, and that explains US adventurism in the middle east well enough. However, the difference between the 60s and Today is that imperialism has done away with the colonial world. The battle between x nationalism versus y nationalism is now like the difference between the Allies and the Axis, one side's victory is obviously better than the others, but both sides of the conflict are such that it would result in supporting the oppression of the working class, contribute to the forgetting of class politics, and the continuation of Capital - and for what, exactly? For the destructing of previous modes of production, that is already accomplished; for protection of human life? Such idealism of practical politics ignores that lives will be lost either way, and aren't really a concern for us (though factor into communist rhetoric). In the end, support for the PKK means support for US domination in the middle east, which just means continued support for the status quo, a call for nationalism, wage-labor, islamism. Does it mean anything else? Destruction of precapitalist bonds? No, it does not in the slightest mean that, it means support for US imperialism for the sake of supporting US imperialism. Why support for isis is unacceptably is self evident. Even if the victory of one of these sides would result in a better overall condition still does not mean that either side is supportable.

Tomorrow, it may be possible (however unlikely) that some interest of capitalism can result in a new redivision of the world, one that would basically be Kautsky's super imperialism, which would result in an equal amount of Capitalist oppression worldwide - if this was possible, I do think it would be supportable by communists as it leads to the equalization of the capacity of production and would resolve many current day problems and would end imperialism (ending yet another barrier to communism). However, this shouldn't be considered a likely phase Capitalism will go through. Neither US, Russian, or Chinese interests have anything to gain from this, and have so much to keep if modern day imperialism stays intact. And this modern day imperialism is so extensive that many countries recognize they have more to gain from just selling out to one of these imperialists than to seriously attempt to become a world power on there own. Old Man Kautsky, the revisionist, was not wrong in saying "supra imperialism" is possible. It's just no real force exists that would make this a reality. There exists only imperialism which can only keep imperialism intact, which communists oppose as surely as they oppose a state which solely keeps the rule of capital about and no longer has pre Capitalist enemies.

So it's kinda like the situation in Venezuela. Chavismo is largely a long term economic failure that is unsupportable today for various reasons, but the american backed opposition is worse.

When it comes to imperialism, principled communists can only support proletarian interests, therefore, today, communists have no sides. This is why I oppose American bombing in Syria.

Hrafn

12th October 2014, 20:55

What?

A reference to Cromwell, perhaps?

Rafiq

12th October 2014, 21:50

Yes but how is intervention UNIQUELY an act of imperialism? Imperialism is a global order, not a form of behavior as far as a country's foreign policy goes. Active American imperialism was there before IS - American intervention is not "more imperialist" than American imperialism in the region before intervention. It would be stupid to claim Imperialism had nothing to do with the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism in general - but opposing intervention simply by merit of "anti imperialism" is lazy and wrong. IS is not an opportunity for American capital - it is a pest. What the US wants is what it had before IS, a government which will not contradict its interests. Having ground troops and military occupation does no one good - not for politicians at home, and not for the pacification of the people's of which they are occupying.

Per Levy

13th October 2014, 00:04

YES!
Why? Because fuck the IS! Bombing those bastards is applied antifascism.

just why aint it suprising that the anti-german fraction is all in for this? just as they were all in for every action that helped to destabalize the region and makeing stuff like isis possible in the first place.

Illegalitarian

13th October 2014, 00:54

Anti-German faction? hmmm?

Zoroaster

13th October 2014, 02:01

So Remus kinda destroyed the competition. Good job kid.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

13th October 2014, 09:39

I see a lot of liberals here who think they're revolutionaries.

Invader Zim

13th October 2014, 10:11

Apparently you didn't get the memo about applying some critical thinking to situations in which the imperialist powers want to drum up support for their warmongering either. Pity. Perhaps you still believe that Iraqi soldiers bayoneted Kuwaiti children (after all, who are you to treat that Kuwaiti nurse with mistrust)?

I have no doubt that ISIS-Daesh is a reactionary force that has carried out its fair share of sectarian murder and sexual abuse up to rape but that does not mean that one ought to simply accept every allegation made about ISIS.

Of course, one could make the same point of any accusation of attrocity both historical and contemporary - as indeed Stalinists and neo-Nazis continue to do. However, the difference between the Nayirah testimony and, say, what is has been going on in the Levant is a preponderance of evidence.

Did you notice a certain gap in the timeline between the MSC/Islamic State in Iraq period and the present bombings? That would be when the ISIS forces were mostly active in Syria, fighting along JAN and other US-supported outfits against the Assad government.

This is chonologically problematic, because it is evidently clear that the worst cases of human rights abuses, on at least a quantitative level, have occured within recent months which correlate with he mass-destablisation of the region in the same period. The US pulled out of the region in 2011, ISIS invaded Syria in 2013, two years later. Clearly, if there is a gap, as you call it, it is disconnected to ISIS activites in Syria and more to do with the USA's refusal, until now, to be drawn back into the quagmire it created. Events of recent months, which I suggest have far more do with political pressure at home than anything else, have forced the Obama administration to reappraise that policy.

I'm three years younger than you. Well, perhaps in three years I too will forget to view the pronouncements of imperialist powers critically.

As I said to the imbicile I was chatting to above, at no point have I taken the US government's statements on the subject to heart. I do not believe that they are necessarily there because of humanitarian concerns, though it might well placate some consciences in Washington. I believe that they are there because press reporting and public opinion and perception of the crisis in Iraq means that limited military intervention is the least damaging political option from the point of view of the Obama administration. Of course, it is likely that they do want to engage on at least some level, because it is not in the USAs interests to allow the region to be destablised. However, all of that is predicated on there being the political support from the US public. ISIS gifted the Obama administration that, and without their attrocities, augmented with considerable press and in turn public attention on those atrrocities, the US would not be bombing the region regardless of its instability. No administration that has just pulled out of the region would have the political capital to re-engage in it without considerable press and public support.

ISIS is not the only Islamist or the only sectarian group in the region - when the JAN, the comrades-in-arms (sometimes literally!) of ISIS were threatening Alawites and other minorities in Syria, the general response of the brave RevLeft anti-anti-imperialists was to... blame Assad for incidents of sectarian murder of non-Sunnis.

... No shit, Sherlock. But the difference is, however, both quantitative and qualitative.

As Izvestia said, it really takes willful ignorance to think the US was pressured to do something, by any sort of reports. It started bombing because it was in its interest to do so, and the reports of atrocities are a method of sustaining public support for the bombing campaign.

You're asking me whether I think that the press and public opinion are sources of significant political power and leverage capable of instigating or chaging foreign policy? You scoff at the notion, but that highlights your ignorance not mine.

How on Earth did you manage to find ISIS in Lebanon?

Because, unlike you, I actually follow world events?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/world/middleeast/isis-lebanon-syria.html?_r=0

And again you manage to miss the point. ISIS is merely one of the many sectarian reactionary groups in the region. Yet as soon as it has managed to tick off the US administration, the average RevLeft member starts treating it as a bogeyman.

And the point you don't seem to get your head around, is that ISIS has managed to elevate itself to being, by far, the most significant threat in the region.

Read this thread. So far we have at least psycho, Atsumari, and RA89.

You're going to have to help me out here, because I've skimmed the thread and see no post from a member with the handle 'psycho' - perhaps this refers to a member who has altered their name?

Invader Zim

13th October 2014, 10:25

You said the campaign was a response to it, not just that the campaign came after it. If you were writing with the understanding that the O admin is concerned primarily with re-asserting control in the region, it would be acting in response to intelligence reports, not sensationalized media stories. It's okay, though. We all make mis-statements. I appreciate your polite clarification that what you said was not what you intended to convey.

Indeed I did, and I'm right - it is a responce to the political pressure derived from the widespread reporting of the attrocities. Whether or not that has facilitated a wider desire to intervene in the region, or it is the sole motivation to appease the masses, is neither here nor there. Either way, without that coverage the Obama administration would never have gained the popular mandate for limited re-enagement in the region. Which is, in long form, what I argued.

Your assertion that I was commenting on the moral compass of the Obama administration is your own invention, because I never made that argument. Let's go back and see what I actually said vs what you claimed I said:

Me: "Ummm... the reports of genocidal attacks began before the bombing campaign, indeed the reporting is the reason why there is a bombing campaign."

You: "The US is bombing ISIS targets because the government is concerned about genocide and saving the lives of its poor, helpless victims, eh? Next thing we know, you'll be explaining how the US military invaded in 2003 to liberate the Iraqis. Nice leftist view of the world you've got going there."

Do you really not see the discontect between what I actually said and that which you are claiming of me?

My comment is about the Obama administration's responce to press, and with it, public political pressure. You are alleging that I have made an argument that the Obama administration has garnered a sense of ethical obligation to enage in the region. Yet, as all of us with basic literacy can observe, I never said anything like that. So, let me repeat this for you so that it sinks in: you have invented that argument and wrongly attributed it to me. It is a strawman.

And this bizarre idea that the US government (or indeed any Western power for that matter) does not react to public opinion in the wake of shifts in press and public opinion is both ludicrous and ahistorical. Indeed, the press is often refered to as the 'Fourth Estate' or the 'Fourth Branch' precisely because of the power that it can, does and always has been able to, weild.

Sasha

13th October 2014, 10:39

Hey 870 take your fucking straw men and shove them, this constant and willfully misrepresenting other users positions is plain slanderous and pathetic, I would tell you to knock it off but since you have been doing this since day one here ill keep it to a fuck you.

Sharia Lawn

13th October 2014, 12:27

Indeed I did, and I'm right - it is a responce to the political pressure derived from the widespread reporting of the attrocities. Whether or not that has facilitated a wider desire to intervene in the region, or it is the sole motivation to appease the masses, is neither here nor there. Either way, without that coverage the Obama administration would never have gained the popular mandate for limited re-enagement in the region. Which is, in long form, what I argued.

Your assertion that I was commenting on the moral compass of the Obama administration is your own invention, because I never made that argument. Let's go back and see what I actually said vs what you claimed I said:

Me: "Ummm... the reports of genocidal attacks began before the bombing campaign, indeed the reporting is the reason why there is a bombing campaign."

You: "The US is bombing ISIS targets because the government is concerned about genocide and saving the lives of its poor, helpless victims, eh? Next thing we know, you'll be explaining how the US military invaded in 2003 to liberate the Iraqis. Nice leftist view of the world you've got going there."

Do you really not see the discontect between what I actually said and that which you are claiming of me?

My comment is about the Obama administration's responce to press, and with it, public political pressure. You are alleging that I have made an argument that the Obama administration has garnered a sense of ethical obligation to enage in the region. Yet, as all of us with basic literacy can observe, I never said anything like that. So, let me repeat this for you so that it sinks in: you have invented that argument and wrongly attributed it to me. It is a strawman.

And this bizarre idea that the US government (or indeed any Western power for that matter) does not react to public opinion in the wake of shifts in press and public opinion is both ludicrous and ahistorical. Indeed, the press is often refered to as the 'Fourth Estate' or the 'Fourth Branch' precisely because of the power that it can, does and always has been able to, weild.

You still don't seem to understand that attributing the bombing campaign to pubilc pressure about the atrocities is only a single (democratic) mediation from the claim that the administration itself is concerned about the atrocities. Either way, it's the liberal vision of a state acting on the basis of concern about atrocities, not on the basis of its interests as an imperialist power. This is a problematic stance on a forum ostensibly for leftist discussion. Please, though, don't let this get in the way of your name-calling.

John Nada

14th October 2014, 06:47

Me: "Ummm... the reports of genocidal attacks began before the bombing campaign, indeed the reporting is the reason why there is a bombing campaign."Could it be that the reporting of the atrocities isn't a cause for bombing campaign, but rather part of the preparation for it? There's many atrocities throughout the world, many atrocities in this war, many committed by the so-called "good guys" who align more closely to the US and co. Yet the focus doesn't seem to be on them as much.

The US, UK and other governments have very good PR/propaganda departments, as do many big businesses and wealthy individuals. They're very adept at guiding the line of discussion in the media. It could be that various factions in the bourgeoisie have differing opinions on this, and use their influence to appeal to the masses to push for a favorable consensus.

As for the poll, I voted no. Even if there was some progressive outcome to arise out of this, which there probably isn't, it would be shackled to imperialist interests at best. It will probably just intensify the death toll. The US intervening to a higher degree is not out of altruism, but of profitability.

Invader Zim

14th October 2014, 11:48

Could it be that the reporting of the atrocities isn't a cause for bombing campaign, but rather part of the preparation for it?

Unless you are suggesting that the British and US governments control media organisations, such as Al Jazeera, then no.

Invader Zim

14th October 2014, 12:08

You still don't seem to understand that attributing the bombing campaign to pubilc pressure about the atrocities is only a single (democratic) mediation from the claim that the administration itself is concerned about the atrocities.

No, I understand the "point" you are trying to make perfectly - I just don't accept it, because it's bollocks. The suggestion that the Obama administration, like any other democratic government in the developed world, reacts to political and press pressure, is somehow unusual or implies that governments would have operated differently without that pressure is quite simply a truism. Indeed, anybody with even an elementary level of historical education should be able to find obvious examples of this phenomenon - not least, given its centinary related relevance, US Foreign Policy between 1914-1917.

Either way, it's the liberal vision of a state acting on the basis of concern about atrocities

No, it isn't. It is actually a rather cynical vision of the state acting, not out of humanitarian interests, but within it's incumbant government's political interests. Keep up.

Sharia Lawn

14th October 2014, 12:30

No, I understand the "point" you are trying to make perfectly - I just don't accept it, because it's bollocks. The suggestion that the Obama administration, like any other democratic government in the developed world, reacts to political and press pressure, is somehow unusual or implies that governments would have operated differently without that pressure is quite simply a truism. Indeed, anybody with even an elementary level of historical education should be able to find obvious examples of this phenomenon - not least, given its centinary related relevance, US Foreign Policy between 1914-1917.

No, it isn't. It is actually a rather cynical vision of the state acting, not out of humanitarian interests, but within it's incumbant government's political interests. Keep up.

And political polls in the US about whether to go to war in Iraq were overwhelmingly in support in the months leading up to the invasion. As I said before, you can make the exact same argument in that case. It was just the US government responding to public pressure in a gloriously democratic system of governance.

A leftist, on the other hand, would insist on examining how support and pressure are primed by a bougeois media acting in conjunction with state functionaries who, as representatives of an imperialist state, have an interest in engaging in these sorts of actions.

One is a liberal analysis. The other is a radical one. Beginning to get the distinction now?

Invader Zim

14th October 2014, 13:08

Any analysis, liberal, radical or otherwise, in order to stand up, has to be predicated on reality. Your "analysis" (which you haven't actually made yet, thus far you have only outlined an hypothesis - learn the difference), which is basically a beefed up conspiracy theory that 'Obama contolz teh mediaz', is based on nothing. And it is, in essence, the same line used by neo-conservatives when they bang on about the 'MSM'. It is horse shit of the highest order when they play that card and it remains so when you do.

First, the media is not a homoginous unit. Rather it is an international collection of organisations and individuals all with their own agendas. Yet, virtually without exception, they have all turned their eyes to ISIS activity and brought it to public attention. As noted, the first such outlet to do so with any impact was that darling of the US establishment, Al Jazeera. Meanwhile other such organisations, including outlets such as The Guardian, which among other things is famed for publishing Snowden's files, were also quick to highlight what has been occurring in the region. If you want to argue that they have all done so, as a means of facilitating air strikes on Iraq and Syria, then kindly produce the evidence to support this hypothesis.

Second, describing the media as 'bougeois' [sic] is meaningless, and actually again presents the media as a homogenous entity. In reality, the class make up of media organisations varies from each paper and broadcaster. As ever on here, the word bourgeois is being employed as a ridiculous buzz word stripped of both context and meaning. In this instance, by applying the term in this instance, you seem to be implying that journalists and even editors control the means of production. For the most part, that isn't true. Or perhaps you are suggesting that 'the media' is an entity in of itself that owns the means of production? Of course, you could be attempting to suggest that this editorial line has been passed down from the proprietors, in league with state officialdom, but where is the evidence of that in this instance? And, as noted, plenty of media organs regularly clash with the interests of the ruling class and state officialdom. Plenty of them don't, but some of them do. But again, that is because the Media is not a single entity.

Third, you haven't actually 'examin[ed] how support and pressure are primed by a bourgeois media acting in conjunction with state functionaries who, as representatives of an imperialist state, have an interest in engaging in these sorts of actions.' Where is this analysis? As noted above, what you have provided is a hypothesis not an analysis.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th October 2014, 14:02

Of course, one could make the same point of any accusation of attrocity both historical and contemporary - as indeed Stalinists and neo-Nazis continue to do. However, the difference between the Nayirah testimony and, say, what is has been going on in the Levant is a preponderance of evidence.

Depends on the allegation. There is more than enough evidence that ISIS units executed surrendering Syrian soldiers. Lurid claims about widespread sexual slavery, crucifixion of Christians etc. are more difficult to prove - especially when many of the sources are as neutral as the Rudaw network.

Of course, given the nature of civil war, it is unfortunately more than likely that sexual violence against women is being committed. But we have no good reason to suppose ISIS is any worse in this regard than Al-Nusra, than the PKK, or the Iraqi and Syrian armies.

This is chonologically problematic, because it is evidently clear that the worst cases of human rights abuses, on at least a quantitative level, have occured within recent months which correlate with he mass-destablisation of the region in the same period. The US pulled out of the region in 2011, ISIS invaded Syria in 2013, two years later. Clearly, if there is a gap, as you call it, it is disconnected to ISIS activites in Syria and more to do with the USA's refusal, until now, to be drawn back into the quagmire it created. Events of recent months, which I suggest have far more do with political pressure at home than anything else, have forced the Obama administration to reappraise that policy.

For much of that period, ISIS was an almost irrelevant remnant of its former self. But pardon, there were other Islamist and Sunni-sectarian groups in the Syrian opposition (most of which seem to have joined ISIS, officially or de facto), which did not differ from ISIS in any respect. But for most of the period, the people who are drumming up the supposed threat that ISIS represents were enthusiastic supporters of the Syrian opposition.

As I said to the imbicile I was chatting to above, at no point have I taken the US government's statements on the subject to heart. I do not believe that they are necessarily there because of humanitarian concerns, though it might well placate some consciences in Washington.

Well, that was convincing. "Not necessarily" - which means that they might be. Which is nonsense and a capitulation to liberalism.

... No shit, Sherlock. But the difference is, however, both quantitative and qualitative.

Oh, and what might that difference be?

Because, unlike you, I actually follow world events?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/world/middleeast/isis-lebanon-syria.html?_r=0

Yeah, so? That was one incident, some time ago, in which ISIS was beaten back. How did you conclude, from that one incident, that ISIS is "waging a vicious and expansionist war in... Lebanon"? If an ISIS shell lands in Turkey, are you going to claim that ISIS is "waging a vicious and expansionist war in Turkey"? It's a pretty blatant attempt to drum up ISIS as some massive bogeyman.

And the point you don't seem to get your head around, is that ISIS has managed to elevate itself to being, by far, the most significant threat in the region.

This is laughable. ISIS has managed to defeat the badly weakened Syrian Army, the various People's Islamic Front of Judea outfits that make up the part of the Syrian opposition that hasn't sided with them, the Kurdish forces (and I know some people here think the Kurds are a democratic-confederalist military superpower with tank battalions and so on, but that just showcases their long-distance relationship with reality), and drive a demoralised Iraqi army from the largely empty Anbar area. At worst, they will install in Iraq and Syria a bourgeois, Sunni-sectarian regime. A regime no worse than the one in Iran, for example, and it would take truly heroic idiocy to suggest that a US bombardment of Iran would be a good thing.

Of course, ISIS will most likely disappear in a few months or years.

You're going to have to help me out here, because I've skimmed the thread and see no post from a member with the handle 'psycho' - perhaps this refers to a member who has altered their name?

Ha ha. Perhaps you should go into standup comedy, you certainly can't do worse than you're doing when it comes to political analysis. I am referring to our dearest Sasha, formerly psycho. Of course, this is a cheap trick to avoid addressing the real problem: we have on this site people who think that imperialist intervention is positive.

Hey 870 take your fucking straw men and shove them, this constant and willfully misrepresenting other users positions is plain slanderous and pathetic, I would tell you to knock it off but since you have been doing this since day one here ill keep it to a fuck you.

Thank you, if a slimy Cold War liberal like you takes offense at what I'm saying I must be doing something right. But let's just say I'm not the first user to notice your slavish tailing of American imperialism or your essentially Shachtmanite orientation - although to be fair Shachtman was a renegade, someone who was once a socialist. How are you a socialist, again? All we've ever heard from you was Dimitrovite anti-fascism for anti-fascism's sake and claims about how the Zapatistas are building a communist society. Oh, and admissions of working with liberals.

So, how do you call that sort of combination? Anti-fascism, popular fronts and socialism in one country?

You call it Stalinism, of course. That's the joke. The most rabid anti-Stalinist on the site has Stalinist politics, plus a slavish adherence to his own imperialist bourgeoisie. You couldn't make this up if you tried.

Sharia Lawn

14th October 2014, 14:10

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

14th October 2014, 14:14

Are the people in favor of intervention against IS also in favor of US intervention against the Shia militias unleashed by Iraq's central government that are carrying out the same kinds of crimes against Sunni civilians?

Rafiq

14th October 2014, 14:44

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

14th October 2014, 14:50

They admitted to taking slaves in their journal Dabiq . http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/isis-confirms-and-justifies-enslaving-yazidis-in-new-magazine-article/381394/

Tim Cornelis

14th October 2014, 15:17

I've seen photos of crucifixions. It's highly likely these are authentic, I'd say.

That 870 feels the need to continue to spread distortions about his opponents positions, like saying Sasha argues in favour of intervention, even though this is the first one of the first posts:

no

It says it right there, and he thinks he can get away with lying about it? Man oh man.

and that he feels the need to unnecessarily cast doubt on sexual slavery and such is also pathetic and disgusting.

What an insufferable, miserable person.

Geiseric

14th October 2014, 18:08

So you would have opposed the imperialist aggression during ww2 as well?

Yes I would have. You're the kind of worm who would justify the nukes used in japan i'd bet.

John Nada

14th October 2014, 22:52

Unless you are suggesting that the British and US governments control media organisations, such as Al Jazeera, then no.

I said guide the discussion, not control it like some stupid conspiracy theory. And I said other governments too, which includes the Qatari government, owners of Al Jazeera, and the British government itself has BBC. Unless you mean they are directly controlling all of it, and you disagree that governments and corporations at least merely influence the media(which does have competing views/markets), then no.

There are many ways to spin the discussion without some shadowy international conspiracy. The journalist have to report to an editor, who has to follow corporate. Corporate has a responsibility to shareholders, or in some cases the actual government. There will be bias just by that fact.

Restricting access, via embedding, too much danger to report in some places, lying or simply not answering questions, has an effect on the narrative. Interviewing certain "experts"(usually ex-military or law enforcement), who often are paid to put out a prepared line, or marginalizing dissenting voices either by slander, drowning out among many voices, or simply silence, it does.

I don't see how any of this is controversial for anyone on the left.

Sasha

14th October 2014, 23:25

No evidence for sexual slavery? You realize they use Twitter and talk about it, right? Oh, I guess those are all fake accounts. they literally have openly admitted it on several occasions. If you think the translations are fake, you don't know Arabic.

I wonder if the Sparts call for defense of the Deformed Workers Caliphate.

not only twitter, they just published a lengthy article in their magazine about how their practice of taking and selling women into sexual slavery is allowed under their interpretation of Sharia law: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/isis-propaganda-magazine-rape-slavery-murder-allah-dabiq
there is a link to the original PDF there too btw

also, if 870 think i'm not much of a socialist that must be a good thing, i certainly wouldn't want to live in what he thinks socialism. after all he is just so different from the worst stalinist as a strasserite is to nazism.

Invader Zim

15th October 2014, 10:41

Lurid claims about widespread sexual slavery, crucifixion of Christians etc. are more difficult to prove - especially when many of the sources are as neutral as the Rudaw network.

Except, as others have noted, ISIS have made no secret of these crimes and indeed reveled in them on various social media outlets.

But we have no good reason to suppose ISIS is any worse in this regard than Al-Nusra, than the PKK, or the Iraqi and Syrian armies.

Well, actually we do, because of the widespread reporting of this sexual violence and ISIS's own statements. But, as you have already made clear, apparently the entire global media is a mouthpiece for the Obama Administration and therefore can be ignored.

For much of that period, ISIS was an almost irrelevant remnant of its former self.

Yes, and now it is not. Funnily enough, the world turned its attentions on ISIS when it began a contracted military campaign earlier this year, announcing to the world that it was very much a power to be contended with. So, you have just explained the 'gap' as you put it.

But pardon, there were other Islamist and Sunni-sectarian groups in the Syrian opposition (most of which seem to have joined ISIS, officially or de facto), which did not differ from ISIS in any respect. But for most of the period, the people who are drumming up the supposed threat that ISIS represents were enthusiastic supporters of the Syrian opposition.

Groups of uncoordinated insurgency, without centralised power base, funding and command structure do not pose a huge threat. manifestly, ISIS is qualitatively different from smaller insurgency groups.

"Not necessarily" - which means that they might be. Which is nonsense and a capitulation to liberalism.

Neither possessing a crystal ball nor access to a fly on the wall position in the Oval Office and 10 Downing Street, I confess to being ignorant of the actual thoughts of the Obama Administration's senior personalities and those of Cameron's Cabinet. Therefore, it is impossible to discount the possibility that they 'might be' - as you, rather cretinously seem to be doing. However, as I have made clear in this thread and you, with typical intellectual and actual dishonesty, have chosen to ignore (despite it being outlined in the very next line of my post) to paint my position as something it isn't. And the irony is that everybody is on to your strawman arguments and others have already called you on them, so why bother to contine to flog this line of dishonest "argument"?

Oh, and what might that difference be?

ISIS is much larger and more powerful group, and civilian casualties in the region have increased prportionally with the rise of ISIS.

Yeah, so? That was one incident, some time ago, in which ISIS was beaten back. How did you conclude, from that one incident, that ISIS is "waging a vicious and expansionist war in... Lebanon"?

Hidden in that ellipsis is the relevent element of the statement which confirms the fact that ISIS is waging a vicious and expansionist war. And, as I said, that has included Lebanon. My statement is accurate, and you have exposed your ignorance.

If an ISIS shell lands in Turkey, are you going to claim that ISIS is "waging a vicious and expansionist war in Turkey"? It's a pretty blatant attempt to drum up ISIS as some massive bogeyman.

Hyperbolic understatements. If they invaded Turkey, attacked one of its cities, and was only beaten back after five days of heavy fighting, I would certainly say that ISIS was waging a war against Turkey.

ISIS has managed to defeat the badly weakened Syrian Army, the various People's Islamic Front of Judea outfits that make up the part of the Syrian opposition that hasn't sided with them, the Kurdish forces (and I know some people here think the Kurds are a democratic-confederalist military superpower with tank battalions and so on, but that just showcases their long-distance relationship with reality), and drive a demoralised Iraqi army from the largely empty Anbar area.

The only startling idiocy on display here is the willingness to dismiss an entity that, according to the very lowest estimates, has amassed a strength of 20,000, murdered well over 1,000 people, raped many more and sold hundreds of women into sexual slavery, in just 17 days, gathered an income of millions of dollars a month, and conquered an area of nearly 200,000 sq/m in a matter of months.

At worst, they will install in Iraq and Syria a bourgeois, Sunni-sectarian regime.

So, basically, your argument is that because Iran is a deeply unpleasant power in the region, fears of ISIS are groundless?

I see.

and it would take truly heroic idiocy to suggest that a US bombardment of Iran would be a good thing.

Given that you have accused people like Sasha of calling for a airstrikes against ISIS, which they have in fact categorically rejected, this is yet another strawman.

Of course, ISIS will most likely disappear in a few months or years.

Short of gazing at tea leaves, it is difficult to envision how you came to this conclusion.

Perhaps you should go into standup comedy, you certainly can't do worse than you're doing when it comes to political analysis.

From the kid who was, until it was pointed out to him, didn't even know that ISIS had attacked Lebanon, revealing a grotqesque igorance of the geopolitics of the region upon which any political analysis must be at least partially based - I'll wear this particular insult as a badge of honour.

I am referring to our dearest Sasha, formerly psycho. Of course, this is a cheap trick to avoid addressing the real problem

How is failing to keep apprised of the various name changes on this board "a cheap trick to avoid addressing the real problem"? And I would suggest that the real problem here, the truely reactionary commentry, is the incorporation of denial of mass sexual violence into an anti-imperialist platform. In fact, I'm amazed that someone spouting such reactionary nonsense has yet to be banned.

Since this is RevLeft, I don't envision myself investing large amounts of time explaining that there is a systematic connection between the state and the news media in bourgeois society. That thesis is a basic element of generic radicalism, and it certainly doesn't require the liberal caricature of conspiracy theories or monoliths.

The argument that the entire world's media can be usilised by the Obama Aministraton, to drum up false reports of mass rape and murder in the Levant, to fuel the political ambitions of the administration is not a basic axiom of the left (and let's not beat around the bush, this is precisely what you have attempted to argue) - it is a bullshit conspiracy theory without foundation.

And if this is your 'political analysis' you should be in grade school.

If you want to cheerlead the USA's military ventures because you think it is acting under democratic pressure from a humanitarian public's concern, then that is your choice. I just don't see what anything you've said here has to do with leftism.

Which I haven't done. Please quote where I have 'cheerled' current US policy in Syria. Quotes, please.

Clearly your grasp of what has been written here is as nebulous as your understanding of the relationship between the global media and the US state.

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 12:33

The argument that the entire world's media can be usilised by the Obama Aministraton, to drum up false reports of mass rape and murder in the Levant, to fuel the political ambitions of the administration is not a basic axiom of the left (and let's not beat around the bush, this is precisely what you have attempted to argue) - it is a bullshit conspiracy theory without foundation.

That would be a conspiracy. I haven't said any of that, though. You'll notice that I never doubt reports of atrocities committed either by ISIS or its Shia opponents, whose atrocities were reported by Amnesty International just yesterday (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/iraq-evidence-war-crimes-government-backed-shi-militias-2014-10-14), to a fraction of the fanfare typically reserved for The Bad Muslims.

My point is that the US state is not attacking ISIS out of humanitarian concern, either its own or those of its citizens. I think 870's point is similar, though he is being baited into making the discussion about who commits what atrocities, as if imperialist policy were ever primarily concerned with preventing atrocities rather than committing them.

If you want to read up on how the news media in the bourgeois core are systematically inclined to amplify the perspectives and interests of the politically and economically powerful, I can suggest some books for you. You may be disappointed that they don't contain much in the way of conspiracies or direct state control.

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 13:15

Wait...are we now defending ISIS?

Is this one of those "lets support the side which is not the US/EU because this is clearly the revolutionary thing to do" issues?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th October 2014, 14:17

Except, as others have noted, ISIS have made no secret of these crimes and indeed reveled in them on various social media outlets.

And if your reading skills were up to task, you would have noticed that I never claimed that ISIS members have not committed rape (or sectarian murder, which I notice has dropped out of the discussion, as baiting with rape is a tried and true RevLeft pastime, whereas talking about sectarian murder might raise some unfortunate questions about the attitudes of some of our esteemed members to this process when directed against Alawites or Arabs). That would be beyond malicious - it would be stupid. My point was that there is no real reason to suppose the rape committed by ISIS members is any different, certainly not qualitatively, than the rape committed by Shi'a militias or government forces or the PKK for that matter (if you want to see rape apologism on RevLeft, mention female PKK members and watch the wheel of excuses turn).

The picture that emerges from ISIS statements, even if all of them are taken at face value, is consistent with that, particularly when the actions of other forces in the civil war is taken into account.

Well, actually we do, because of the widespread reporting of this sexual violence and ISIS's own statements. But, as you have already made clear, apparently the entire global media is a mouthpiece for the Obama Administration and therefore can be ignored.

Now this is interesting. Do you read "the entire global media"? Russian media, Chinese, Singaporean, Turkish, Saudi, Malian etc.? No? I didn't think so. Most of us are, due to language barriers and political habit, restricted to newspapers based in western imperialist powers, some based in the sub-imperialist powers of the region (al Jazeera), and political sources from the region like the Rudaw Network and so on.

The rest of the paragraph is a pretty pathetic attempt to portray a socialist approach to the media - that is, taking into account the class interests that stand behind the allegedly neutral reporting - as conspiracy thinking (you say so explicitly in a later paragraph). This is a lazy "rebuttal" that can be applied to any structural feature of the class society. Socialists, for example, say that parliamentary governments of bourgeois states always advance the interests of the ruling class, no matter the party in power and its rhetoric. Is this "conspiracy thinking"? No, there is no conspiracy. But the structure of the bourgeois state and its role in class society is such that its officials can't but advance the interests of the ruling class.

Likewise with bourgeois media. No editor sits down and thinks to himself "how shall I help advance the cause of American imperialism today?". But the pressures of official policy and the official line lead to choices being made about the reliability of sources, the emphasis placed in reporting etc. that conform to the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

Yes, and now it is not. Funnily enough, the world turned its attentions on ISIS when it began a contracted military campaign earlier this year, announcing to the world that it was very much a power to be contended with. So, you have just explained the 'gap' as you put it.

Again, the point was that groups similar to ISIS and connected to ISIS have existed throughout this period. Your response is as if the Western liberals who only noticed German fascism and nationalism when the Nazis became irritants to Anglo-French imperialism said that, after all, the NSDAP was not a significant force prior to that. Well, it wasn't. But the Freikorps and other nationalist organisations, many of which would merge into the NSDAP, were. Communists opposed them from the beginning - just as we oppose sectarian groups in Iraq and Syria no matter if they call themselves IS or PKK or JAN or whatever. At the same time, communists give no support to imperialism, not when Anglo-French imperialism fought the Nazis, and not now when American imperialism is fighting ISIS.

Groups of uncoordinated insurgency, without centralised power base, funding and command structure do not pose a huge threat. manifestly, ISIS is qualitatively different from smaller insurgency groups.

Except the various opposition groups were able to coordinate their actions even before ISIS emerged as a major player, and ISIS itself is not some sort of monolith. The myth of the confused and disorganised Syrian opposition is chiefly due to the necessity (for American imperialism) of inventing a "good" Free Syrian Army and the "bad" Islamists. But the FSA has been exposed as a Potemkin group so long ago it's not even funny anymore.

Neither possessing a crystal ball nor access to a fly on the wall position in the Oval Office and 10 Downing Street, I confess to being ignorant of the actual thoughts of the Obama Administration's senior personalities and those of Cameron's Cabinet. Therefore, it is impossible to discount the possibility that they 'might be' - as you, rather cretinously seem to be doing. However, as I have made clear in this thread and you, with typical intellectual and actual dishonesty, have chosen to ignore (despite it being outlined in the very next line of my post) to paint my position as something it isn't. And the irony is that everybody is on to your strawman arguments and others have already called you on them, so why bother to contine to flog this line of dishonest "argument"?

And again, your entire argument hinges on a liberal understanding of political action. What Obama and Cameron think is irrelevant. Their function as the chiefs of bourgeois governments is to safeguard the interest of their national section of the bourgeoisie, which in the case of both the US and the UK is an imperialist bourgeoisie. The bombing of ISIS happened, not because Obama is good or because Obama is evil, and certainly not because of media pressure (one would think that, if that worked, there would be a war in the Darfur), but because it corresponds to the short-term interest of American imperialism.

The "others" who have "called me out" are all notorious pro-imperialists such as our beloved Sasha, Cornelis, and so on. Well, pardon, but I don't feel particularly motivated to take their opinion into account. And their - and yours for that matter - shilling for imperialism is widely known. The cat's been out of the bag since the Libyan intervention at least. Of course many of their critics found themselves mysteriously banned, but that's a discussion for another time.

ISIS is much larger and more powerful group, and civilian casualties in the region have increased prportionally with the rise of ISIS.

So it's perfectly alright to ignore sectarian murder as long as there's not a lot of it?

Hidden in that ellipsis is the relevent element of the statement which confirms the fact that ISIS is waging a vicious and expansionist war. And, as I said, that has included Lebanon. My statement is accurate, and you have exposed your ignorance.

[...]

Hyperbolic understatements. If they invaded Turkey, attacked one of its cities, and was only beaten back after five days of heavy fighting, I would certainly say that ISIS was waging a war against Turkey.

So, Zim, did the Soviets and Mongolians wage war against the Japanese since the Halhamiao incident? No, of course not, that is ridiculous and no serious historical work recognises this "war". One incursion does not make a war. Again, the point seems to be to portray ISIS as some sort of demon, as another user put it, to drum up war hysteria.

The only startling idiocy on display here is the willingness to dismiss an entity that, according to the very lowest estimates, has amassed a strength of 20,000, murdered well over 1,000 people, raped many more and sold hundreds of women into sexual slavery, in just 17 days, gathered an income of millions of dollars a month, and conquered an area of nearly 200,000 sq/m in a matter of months.

How many people were killed in the Taiping rebellion? And yet, despite the extreme death toll and the surprising early successes of the rebels, I think it is hard to argue that they had a realistic chance at succeeding.

So, basically, your argument is that because Iran is a deeply unpleasant power in the region, fears of ISIS are groundless?

I see.

Perhaps you need to read the paragraph in question again - or perhaps no amount of re-reading would help you. The point is that ISIS, at worst, can only establish a bourgeois sectarian regime in Iraq and Syria. This "at worst" is at the same time extremely unrealistic - but the wild claims about some sort of global ISIS caliphate are laughable. As is the notion that an ISIS government would be a different kind of government than the one that already exists in Iraq.

Given that you have accused people like Sasha of calling for a airstrikes against ISIS, which they have in fact categorically rejected, this is yet another strawman.

Here is how you categorically reject airstrikes, apparently:

"no, though i dont fault the kurdish fighters on the ground for welcoming the meager relief while they are getting royally screwed over by all the regional and global powerplayers alike."

That's not a categorical rejection, that's shame-faced support. "No, I don't support airstrikes, but think of the Kurds!" All of which is pretty consistent with Sasha's previous statements that he "would not oppose" a bombing of Syria, back when the intended target was the Assad government.

How is failing to keep apprised of the various name changes on this board "a cheap trick to avoid addressing the real problem"? And I would suggest that the real problem here, the truely reactionary commentry, is the incorporation of denial of mass sexual violence into an anti-imperialist platform. In fact, I'm amazed that someone spouting such reactionary nonsense has yet to be banned.

And there we have it, whenever our little Shachtmanite pro-imperialist clique can't actually address their blatant support for their own imperialist bourgeoisie they turn into princes on red horses, self-appointed protectors of womankind. Except, of course, no one has denied that rape has occurred. It's just that one of us - that would be you, if you're not keeping track - is trying to use rape committed by ISIS, together with a complete disregard of rape committed by other sides in the war, to rationalise their support for imperialism.

Lord Testicles

15th October 2014, 15:09

Here is how you categorically reject airstrikes, apparently:

"no, though i dont fault the kurdish fighters on the ground for welcoming the meager relief while they are getting royally screwed over by all the regional and global powerplayers alike."

That's not a categorical rejection, that's shame-faced support. "No, I don't support airstrikes, but think of the Kurds!" All of which is pretty consistent with Sasha's previous statements that he "would not oppose" a bombing of Syria, back when the intended target was the Assad government.

No, that's nowhere near "support." It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't support "X" but I can see why "Y" would."

As for Sasha's support for air-strikes against Syria, I really wouldn't know but considering your clear intention to twist and misrepresent things that people say, I'd say that we're going to need a direct quote with a link before we believe you on that account since you are clearly dishonest when it comes to these type of discussions.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th October 2014, 15:22

No, that's nowhere near "support." It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't support "X" but I can see why "Y" would."

Again, context is everything. The question was whether the user supports the US bombing of Syria. "No, but..." is a classic example of shamefaced support. If someone asks me if I support imperialist intervention against Saudi Arabia, "No, but I can see why the Si'a in Saudi Arabia would." would be an obvious "no, but yes". Even though, yeah, probably a lot of Shi'a in Saudi Arabia wouldn't mind the Sauds getting a missile up their arse. But why bring it up? How is it relevant? Add to that the constant threads about the glorious Kurdish revolution/war of national resistance/female fighters/democratic confederal something something, and yeah...

As for Sasha's support for air-strikes against Syria, I really wouldn't know but considering your clear intention to twist and misrepresent things that people say, I'd say that we're going to need a direct quote with a link before we believe you on that account since you are clearly dishonest when it comes to these type of discussions.

Here is the original thread (note that of course psycho never said he supported the bombing, merely that he didn't oppose it, which is what I said): http://www.revleft.com/vb/foreign-military-involvement-t182851/index.html?t=182851

Here is another thread from the same period, attacking "Western narcissists" who oppose US intervention: http://www.revleft.com/vb/open-letter-syria-t182977/index.html

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 15:32

So by that same rationale being against the US intervention is direct support for ISIS.

Making a few leaps there by being more than a little black&white.

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 15:35

And besides.

Who here is of the impression that ISIS is NOT playing into Western imperialist aims in the region?

The bombings and so called military aid and intervention are simply placating public opinion and boosting strategical interests of the military industrial complex to boot.

If real strategic, political and economic interests were at risk here there would already be deployment. ISIS simply is another angle for the current dominant bourgeois faction.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th October 2014, 15:41

So by that same rationale being against the US intervention is direct support for ISIS.

No, that doesn't really follow. But if someone were to say that they "are not opposed to" ISIS taking Anbar province (after all, many Sunnis in the area would probably welcome it), then, yes, formulated like that that is support for ISIS.

And besides.

Who here is of the impression that ISIS is NOT playing into Western imperialist aims in the region?

The bombings and so called military aid and intervention are simply placating public opinion and boosting strategical interests of the military industrial complex to boot.

If real strategic, political and economic interests were at risk here there would already be deployment. ISIS simply is another angle for the current dominant bourgeois faction.

The reasons we oppose the intervention have nothing to do with ISIS. No one here likes ISIS - it needs to be driven out like all bourgeois sectarian groups. But we oppose the actions of "our own" imperialist bourgeoisie, as a matter of principle, both for domestic reasons and because imperialist intervention makes things worse for the workers in Syria and Iraq.

Palmares

15th October 2014, 15:49

...imperialist intervention makes things worse for the workers in Syria and Iraq.

Things are pretty bad for non-workers as well.

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 15:53

No, that doesn't really follow. But if someone were to say that they "are not opposed to" ISIS taking Anbar province (after all, many Sunnis in the area would probably welcome it), then, yes, formulated like that that is support for ISIS.

The reasons we oppose the intervention have nothing to do with ISIS. No one here likes ISIS - it needs to be driven out like all bourgeois sectarian groups. But we oppose the actions of "our own" imperialist bourgeoisie, as a matter of principle, both for domestic reasons and because imperialist intervention makes things worse for the workers in Syria and Iraq.

You are not really addressing the points.

The first is obvious:

if you say you don't oppose something you obviously do not oppose something.

but your logic is....if you do oppose something but...then it logically follows you do not oppose that something.

Well it turns out it isn't quite that simple.

What we have here is several bourgeois factions fighting for domination. Within the constellation of reactionary forces vying for power all trying to extend their powerbase well beyong their own region and impose their religious, political and economic domination on others....subjectively selecting one for specific focus creates an out of context analysis.

So no. I do NOT support the bombings. BUT currently NO faction fighting in that region is 1). NON imperialist 2). Having the best interest of the working class in mind 3). anything that actually improves the lives of people. 4). Actually representing anything that is in any way shape or form serving anything but the bourgeois

As far as I am concerned this whole shitfest IS imperialism in progress for all angles.

Mindlessly focussing on Western imperialism kind of creates the dichotomy that there therefore is a worse and less worse kind of imperialism.

Like you are doing right in this quoted post.

Because the simple fact is...the US is not making anything better. Neither however is ISIS. Neither are the Shia militia's, The Iraqi Government or the Kurds or the Turks. Or Assad. Or anybody.

Now...kindly tell me which one isn't
1). imperialist
2). depending on imperialism
3). having the best interest in mind for the working class
4). actually improving the situation of the working class

So instead of doing what some revolutionaries always do: "Hurdur Western Imperialism is baaaad lets focus entirely on this and if you make a caveat then obviously you are some closet liberal" you might want to actually make a correct analysis of the situation and add something that is actually usefull. Because that is a dead horse...that has been beaten waaaay to many times. In doing so and your subtile defense of ISIS and casting doubt on ISIS-self-admitted policy as Western propaganda you subjectively create the impression that some imperialism is less bad than others.

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 16:02

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th October 2014, 16:30

With what definition of imperialism would somebody be prepared to call ISIS an imperialist power?

I am curious about this as well. ISIS certainly originated as a proxy force of American imperialism, but to call the IS imperialist stretches all bounds of credibility. What financial oligarchies, what imperialist cartels are controlling the economy of IS? It's ludicrous.

I disagree with 870 on one thing: not opposing something shouldn't be mistaken with openly and explicitly colluding with it.

I didn't mean to say that this is true in general, but in some special circumstances it does. And it's not just not opposing imperialism - certain users on RevLeft go out of their way to whitewash imperialism, denigrate anyone opposed to it, bait anyone opposed to imperialism and so on.

What we have here is several bourgeois factions fighting for domination. Within the constellation of reactionary forces vying for power all trying to extend their powerbase well beyong their own region and impose their religious, political and economic domination on others....subjectively selecting one for specific focus creates an out of context analysis.

The problem is in your attempt to place all sides of the conflict on the same level. They're not. On one hand we have a vicious sectarian conflict. Communists oppose all sides in that war. On the other hand there is an imperialist intervention, limited but still an intervention, against one of the factions. The imperialist bourgeoisie of the US is not the same as the Sunni bourgeoisie that supports ISIS or the Shi'a bourgeoisie that supports the Maliki government - not because it's worse but because its role in the region is different.

Besides, none of us are in Syria or Iraq as of the time of writing. We can and should condemn the various sectarian militias of the civil war, but in the end, we can't do anything about them. What we can do something about - collectively, not individually - is US imperialism. That is why there ought to be focus on one side - the first enemy is at home.

Because the simple fact is...the US is not making anything better. Neither however is ISIS. Neither are the Shia militia's, The Iraqi Government or the Kurds or the Turks. Or Assad. Or anybody.

But of course, no one is defending IS or the Shi'a militias, or saying that the IS have a duty to clean up the mess that Zawahiri created, or talking about how the Iraqi government needs to be armed. If they were, we would oppose them.

Sasha

15th October 2014, 16:44

With what definition of imperialism would somebody be prepared to call ISIS an imperialist power?

I disagree with 870 on one thing: not opposing something shouldn't be mistaken with openly and explicitly colluding with it. It means just as PA said, not opposing something. Yet it can't be ignored that if you refuse to take a stand opposing an imperialist invasion, you forfeit any serious claims to being considered anti-imperialist. In a conflict of imperialist versus oppressed, not taking a stand amounts to acceptance of the status quo. That status quo is likely to be the continued oppression of the oppressed, and disempowerment of the powerless. That puts a person on the wrong side of the international class struggle.

i think the line taken by knee jerk anti-imps (which comes down to open and uncritical support of any bourgeois dictatorship that occasionally and nominally mutters some meaningless PR platitudes aimed at the lefts useful idiots) is far more likely to contribute to the status quo, the continued oppression of the oppressed, the disempowerment of the powerless and puts a person on the wrong side of the international class struggle as my "a pest on all their houses" refusal to be drawn into meaningless coldwar cosplaying.

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 16:58

If I really need you to explain how ISIS is imperialist then perhaps you don't really have a basis for participating in this debate with the self supposed and alleged authority you seem to speak with.

Invader Zim

15th October 2014, 17:00

And if your reading skills were up to task, you would have noticed that I never claimed that ISIS members have not committed rape

No, what you've done is attempt to play it down, dismiss its extent, and generally qualify mass rape, because you confuse anti-imperialism with tacit approval and apologia for the worst kind of reactionary groups providing they have drawn the ire of the major imperialist powers.

Now this is interesting. Do you read "the entire global media"? Russian media, Chinese, Singaporean, Turkish, Saudi, Malian etc.? No? I didn't think so.

You're right about that, I don't. It is a supposition based on the otherwise clearly widespread media focus on ISIS activities - which of course you know full well, but are engaging in pedantry to avoid addressing the actual point - that media outlets well outside of the direct influence of the Obama Administration, and not aligned to its interests, are also reporting what has been happening in the Levant.

But let's go through some international news outlets to see if they are carrying stories about ISIS attrocities:

Russia Today (http://rt.com/news/195368-isis-confirms-enslaving-yazidi-women/)

China Daily (http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2014-08/22/content_18468351.htm)

Channel News Asia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/iraqi-jihadists-order/1281198.html)

Hurriyet English (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/human-rights-watch-finds-isil-execution-site.aspx?pageID=238&nID=68351&NewsCatID=352)

Arab News (http://www.arabnews.com/middle-east/news/639006)

All Africa (http://allafrica.com/stories/201408252112.html)

All lies, clearly.

The rest of the paragraph is a pretty pathetic attempt to portray a socialist approach to the media - that is, taking into account the class interests that stand behind the allegedly neutral reporting - as conspiracy thinking (you say so explicitly in a later paragraph).

Of course, you did not produce an analysis taking "the class interests that stand behind the allegedly neutral reporting" in any specific instance, which would actually involve doing some research. Instead, you made a sweeping generalization regarding the media, as if all journalists and outlets are the same, as a means of dismissing out of hand any and all reporting that does not confirm your suppositions. You see, I'm not dismissing a socialist analysis of the media, I'm dismissing your analysis of the media.

Likewise with bourgeois media. No editor sits down and thinks to himself "how shall I help advance the cause of American imperialism today?". But the pressures of official policy and the official line lead to choices being made about the reliability of sources, the emphasis placed in reporting etc. that conform to the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

And yet both historically and currently, some media outlets manage to eschew, or at least mitigate, such influences, meanwhile reading reporting from elsewhere in world mitigates that further. Because, again, not all media outlets operate under the same ideological preconceptions, national structures, or material conditions. By lumping the media together, as you clearly have attempted to do, you only highlight precisely why your 'analysis' is neither socialist, liberal conservative or anything else - just nonsense. But I wouldn't expect anything different from individual with such an insular view of the world.

Your response is as if the Western liberals who only noticed German fascism and nationalism when the Nazis became irritants to Anglo-French imperialism said that, after all, the NSDAP was not a significant force prior to that. Well, it wasn't. But the Freikorps and other nationalist organisations, many of which would merge into the NSDAP, were.

God, your ignorance is appalling. First, get the terminology right, terms like Liberal meat something entirely different in 1920 to what it means now. Second, no, they weren't, and, no, they didn't. From the Anglo-French position the Freikorps were an irrelevance, even to be be supported (the same applied for some time regarding the Nazi Dictatorship) as an anti-communist force. As for the NSDAP, the British state identified Nazi Germany as a major potential threat long before, as you put it, 'became irritants to Anglo-French imperialism'. In fact, they established that Nazi Germany was the 'ultimate enemy' in 1934. Meanwhile, the people you describe as 'liberals', on the whole, did not come to the realization about the full threat posed by Nazi Germany, and support military action, until 9–10 November 1938 - the significance of which I will leave you to google. Third, are you really trying to make a comparison between the NSDAP of 1920 (when the Freikorps was disbanded) and ISIS of 2014? if so, you need some lessons in basic comparative history.

just as we oppose sectarian groups in Iraq and Syria no matter if they call themselves IS or PKK or JAN or whatever. At the same time, communists give no support to imperialism, not when Anglo-French imperialism fought the Nazis, and not now when American imperialism is fighting ISIS.

And I'm not advocating for US airstrikes, so that is a moot point. It is, however, historically inaccurate. Communists, and large numbers of them, did back the Western powers both in 1939 and then in even greater numbers after 1941 - unless you are going to play a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

And again, your entire argument hinges on a liberal understanding of political action.

No it isn't, which is why you have, yet again, resorted to a strawman argument to characterize what I have said as something different from what I actually wrote.

What Obama and Cameron think is irrelevant. Their function as the chiefs of bourgeois governments is to safeguard the interest of their national section of the bourgeoisie, which in the case of both the US and the UK is an imperialist bourgeoisie.

Where has anybody argued that high political office in either Britain or the Unites States is not a functionary role within western capitalist super-structures? What I would argue, and again rightly, is that this role is nuanced by the political apparatus of those super-structures, which, specifically necessitates reaction to the prevailing winds of public opinion.

The bombing of ISIS happened, not because Obama is good or because Obama is evil, and certainly not because of media pressure (one would think that, if that worked, there would be a war in the Darfur), but because it corresponds to the short-term interest of American imperialism.

More nonsense, the events in the Levant appear far more clearly on the radar of the western public than that of Darfur. Doubtless the majority of the western public could not even point to Darfur on a map or even tell you in which continent Darfur resides. Anglo-American recent history in the Levant has granted ISIS activites a far more pronounced status. And, in doing so, has placed the Levant far higher on the agendas of both British and American Foreign Policy - both powers, in order to appear credible both at home and on the world stage, have to be seen to be doing something. And that is entirely in keeping with the interests of both sets of ruling classes, for whom an apparent weakness on the world stage can only be deemed detrimental.

And their - and yours for that matter - shilling for imperialism is widely known.

Again, it is a matter of pride to be called a shill for imperialism, by a relativist of rape.

Rottenfruit

15th October 2014, 17:17

yes i do , not everything america does has to be bad and genocide is a thing that has to be stopped, if isis is left unchecked it will lead to another rawanda

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th October 2014, 17:23

yes i do , not everything america does has to be bad and genocide is a thing that has to be stopped, if isis is left unchecked it will lead to another rawanda

Do you think the intervention should be extended to target the Shia militias as well?

Rafiq

15th October 2014, 17:51

Sexual violence is inexcusable in all circumstances, but openly defending it and laying the foundations for its structural and dare I say institutional reproduction, legitimacy is nothing short of horrifying.

For example, there resides the possibility of the Kurdish militias to partake in an anti-rape campaign - because "formally", they oppose it - they do not have a theoretical or ideological justification for it. IS on the other hand, openly and proudly engages in the mass sexual slavery of people en masse. This is hardly comparable.

Take for example the civil rights movement - yes the racism of the state still exists, must still be fought. But was the movement futile? At least formally - openly, they cannot "justify" racism, therefore allowing us to oppose them solely out of racism, the debate as to whether racism is "good" or "bad", or whether we should still have segregation (besides on a marginal level) is OVER. We all know "it is bad", and now the task is to expose it and destroy it on levels which are not "formal" or openly admitted.

I for one wouldn't like to live in a country where the 'hot political debates' are of whether sexual slavery or rape is justified.

Rafiq

15th October 2014, 17:56

Many people like to make the situation less horrifying by tracing it back to old practices, or attributing it to cultural differences, treading the waters of some kind of crypto-relativism. The real horrifying thing is that the sexual slavery IS engages in is strictly a modern phenomena - this is the barbarism of capitalism Marxists have spoke of for the past century.

Barbarism - it's not NECESSARILY relentless violence but a degeneration in political standards. It means the abdication of the achievements of liberalism and the age of reason. It is the politicization of the mass ignorance and philistinism, it is war on ethnic or religious lines.

Thirsty Crow

15th October 2014, 18:06

Because the simple fact is...the US is not making anything better. Neither however is ISIS. Neither are the Shia militia's, The Iraqi Government or the Kurds or the Turks. Or Assad. Or anybody.

But folks have severe problems with even allowing for that possibility, that the end result of an understanding of the conflict in terms of class could be the recognition of the irreducibly destructive character of the whole conflict situation.
Since, in order to be relevant and "connect to the masses", it seems, there simply has to be a side which can be pidgeonholed into, maybe", a category of the "semi-progressive"; thus the particular example of leftist organizations actually claiming that the battle for Kobane represents a historic class struggle which is akin to that of the Paris Commune and that Kurdish self-determination and nation-state buidling represents a goal which must be supported.

It's bewildering really, as if there is a kind of a psychological compulsion at play here to find something to support (since there is no worthwhile practical activity if there's no handing out support) in every possible situation and at whichever price - even that of clarity.

(though to be clear, this little rant is not directed at anyone here)

VivalaCuarta

15th October 2014, 19:09

Lenin said:

A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, cannot fail to see that its military reverses facilitate its overthrow.Most of the leftists here are second editions of imperialist chief Barack Obama, who as we recall "opposed" the imperialist war policy of his predecessor, which he called "dumb wars." Now we have his "smart" wars, but bourgeois opinion is not in solid agreement as to their intelligence. Some leftists wish Obama and his imperialist war machine were still more smarter.

And of course everyone is opposed to war, even the generals, who do their best to prevent war by maintaining their defenses and preemptively striking at their enemies, before a weak enemy has a chance to threaten a bigger war. They are all good pacifists and will be rewarded in heaven.

The question of principle for revolutionary socialists is if you are for the defeat of your own bourgeois government in this war.

The question as worded here serves to give cover to all but the stupidest of imperialist lackeys (who will vote "yes" to please their masters). Not "supporting" a war has never been a serious obstacle to supporting a war, which is what most of our "no" voters here do in practice, after duly swearing the proper social-pacifist oaths.

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 19:41

i think the line taken by knee jerk anti-imps (which comes down to open and uncritical support of any bourgeois dictatorship that occasionally and nominally mutters some meaningless PR platitudes aimed at the lefts useful idiots) is far more likely to contribute to the status quo, the continued oppression of the oppressed, the disempowerment of the powerless and puts a person on the wrong side of the international class struggle as my "a pest on all their houses" refusal to be drawn into meaningless coldwar cosplaying.

Certainly some people on the forum might take positions in support of reactionary forces opposing imperialism, but does this excuse other people saying that they don't oppose an imperialist intervention in those same cases? I don't think so.

It might be instructive to offer analogy. If a person can claim to be anti-imperialist while not opposing some imperialist interventions, can a person claim to be anti-racist while saying that they do not not oppose some racist activities? Why should a person be laughed off the forum for saying the second thing, but not the first?

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 20:49

The whole problem is with this thread as well as others is that it specifically focusses on one simple instance, taken out of context, and on that basis make a subjective and downright wrong decision that a. that is the embodyment of imperialism b. it should be opposed structurally and categorically based on a. simply because it is a.

Let me clarify that beyond the post I made above.

The bombings are not imperialism. The whole situation however is. Singling out one fraction of it based on the fact that it is committed by the US is faulty analysis and in essence it is bait and obfuscates the bigger picture: warring bourgeois factions.

The question previously was raised in response to my point about ISIS how ISIS could be an imperialist force. The general lack of insight is splendidly worded here:

I am curious about this as well. ISIS certainly originated as a proxy force of American imperialism, but to call the IS imperialist stretches all bounds of credibility. What financial oligarchies, what imperialist cartels are controlling the economy of IS? It's ludicrous.

ISIS itself is currently a financial oligarchy having a large stream of funds it receives from bourgeois factions within the Middle East in countries such as Saudi Aarabia and Qattar and a steady income from bank confiscations, taxations and, lets not forget, their own international oil sales which estimatedly nett them 3 million dollars a day. Their objectives are simply put local, regional and eventually intercontinental increasing expansion of their influence with subjugation of those within its sphere of influence.

This is no longer a ragtag band of fighters but a nation of itself with its own infrastructure and political, economic and religious aims and....elite.

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 20:50

Lenin said:

Most of the leftists here are second editions of imperialist chief Barack Obama, who as we recall "opposed" the imperialist war policy of his predecessor, which he called "dumb wars." Now we have his "smart" wars, but bourgeois opinion is not in solid agreement as to their intelligence. Some leftists wish Obama and his imperialist war machine were still more smarter.

And of course everyone is opposed to war, even the generals, who do their best to prevent war by maintaining their defenses and preemptively striking at their enemies, before a weak enemy has a chance to threaten a bigger war. They are all good pacifists and will be rewarded in heaven.

The question of principle for revolutionary socialists is if you are for the defeat of your own bourgeois government in this war.

The question as worded here serves to give cover to all but the stupidest of imperialist lackeys (who will vote "yes" to please their masters). Not "supporting" a war has never been a serious obstacle to supporting a war, which is what most of our "no" voters here do in practice, after duly swearing the proper social-pacifist oaths.

Fair enough. But this is not a revolutionary war or conflict. It is a conflict between competing bourgeois factions.

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 21:17

Fair enough. But this is not a revolutionary war or conflict. It is a conflict between competing bourgeois factions.

There's a word for it when one of the parties in the conflict is a foreign force belonging to a state representing the world's largest and most powerful business firms. Can you guess what it is?

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 21:37

So basically that is choosing between factions based on power between the factions.

And considering the post you replied to...we're you just suggesting that this is a revolutionary conflict?

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 21:49

So basically that is choosing between factions based on power between the factions.

A person doesn't need to choose any existing faction to express opposition to an imperialist venture. It is possible to express political opposition to an invasion, while maintaining that an indigenous group hasn't arisen yet that would be worth supporting logistically or militarily to fight the imperialists once the invasion is underway. In that case, it's not a matter of having to support any group. It's a matter opposing an imperialist country's involvement. An example of this would be a French socialist engaging in actions to prevent the deployment of their country's fighter jets and soldiers. This is problematic only to a person who actually supports the imperialist country's involvement as a net positive in the conflict, but if a person thinks that, then I am not sure what why that person would claim to be a leftist.

And considering the post you replied to...we're you just suggesting that this is a revolutionary conflict?If I have to explain to you that opposition to imperialism shouldn't be conditioned on whether an opposition within the invaded country is actually waging a socialist revolution, then perhaps you don't really have a basis for participating in this debate with the self supposed and alleged authority you seem to speak with.

John Lennin

15th October 2014, 22:06

You're the kind of worm who would justify the nukes used in japan i'd bet.
I am not.

Yes I would have.
So you don't care about fascism, mass murder and genocide?

DOOM

15th October 2014, 22:30

I am not.

So you don't care about fascism, mass murder and genocide?

To be fair, most of revleft cares about fascism. Their point is that the workers must free themselves from fascism (which is in my opinion fairly unlikely to happen), as an intervention would be "imperialist". Trots and left-coms on the other side don't see a massive difference between liberalism and fascism (given the fact that the trot definition of fascism is..well yeah).

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 22:31

A person doesn't need to choose any existing faction to express opposition to an imperialist venture. It is possible to express political opposition to an invasion, while maintaining that an indigenous group hasn't arisen yet that would be worth supporting logistically or militarily to fight the imperialists once the invasion is underway. In that case, it's not a matter of having to support any group. It's a matter opposing an imperialist country's involvement. An example of this would be a French socialist engaging in actions to prevent the deployment of their country's fighter jets and soldiers. This is problematic only to a person who actually supports the imperialist country's involvement as a net positive in the conflict, but if a person thinks that, then I am not sure what why that person would claim to be a leftist.

If I have to explain to you that opposition to imperialism shouldn't be conditioned on whether an opposition within the invaded country is actually waging a socialist revolution, then perhaps you don't really have a basis for participating in this debate with the self supposed and alleged authority you seem to speak with.

Maybe you should consider reading what you reply to and try to contextualize it...like in actually read the original post I replied to. Perhaps then you would step of your little fucking pony and stop pretending it is a high horse. But nice fail. Good for you.

Now lets return to your first part. Apparently a person DOES need to chose a faction since a faction is singled out here and dependend on if you clearly and unequivocally with no caveats expressly state OMG NOOOOOOO EVULLL then you are a closet liberal of a slithery cold war liberal. According to the faction ofcourse which consists of people who will support any faction which is opposing western imperialism as some sort of anti-imp force or tries to sweep blatant widespread attrocities under the rug.

So lets reapply that same logic...

The sheer fact of the matter, one which is conveniently side stepped here again and again, is that the bombings are but one fraction of expression of imperialism going on right now. Without those bombings or military involvement I guess according to some here everything would be a-okay. . This is like saying well we have a hornet and a slightly bigger hornet...which one do you like less in your car.

What I am trying to get through to you is that the bombings are irrelevant and that there is not a single instance in that conflict which is not continued imperialism or the continued result of imperialism. The, haphazard, military intervention is irrelevant for this.

What I am also trying to get through to you is that this continued singling out of faction and taking them out of context is damaging. Not only for a proper analysis of the situation but also to creating an adequate response in organisation and activism as well as explaining it to the general population.

What you also fail to realize is that there is no non-imperialist faction active in the region. None. Yet you are focussing your energies on that...and pretend the fuck out of your little fucking make pretend pipe-dream that ISIS is some regional force of raggetytaggety angry and upset Muslims rather than a coordinated well armed and well funded nation with clear, precise and very well outlined strategic, economic and religious expansionists views...and that they are currently winning.

From your little armchair behind your nice comfy computer in some western country it is all nice and well to make such black and white distinctions citing theory and using the ruler to measure the collective size of our collective revolutionary penisses in order to see which is the largest and bestests....however....try living in a region currently threatened by ISIS. See how much your ideological purity really matters.

So instead of giving us these ideological platitudes...actually make some useful analysis.

So I am sure that there is some real value for the Kurds, Iraqi's, Syrians currenlty living under threat of or in regions controlled by ISIS if we all collectively march to our nearest US embassy to wave out nice little flags around and shout our rigtheous indignation at the walls and the marines guarding the building...I am sure that is of huge help to them.

Now kindly make one thing perfectly clear:

Are you claiming that ISIS is preferable to US/EU bourgeois capitalist democracy?

Because for all your posturing...that is actually what it comes down to.

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 22:39

Maybe you should consider reading what you reply to and try to contextualize it...like in actually read the original post I replied to. Perhaps then you would step of your little fucking pony and stop pretending it is a high horse. But nice fail. Good for you.

Now lets return to your first part. Apparently a person DOES need to chose a faction since a faction is singled out here and dependend on if you clearly and unequivocally with no caveats expressly state OMG NOOOOOOO EVULLL then you are a closet liberal of a slithery cold war liberal. According to the faction ofcourse which consists of people who will support any faction which is opposing western imperialism as some sort of anti-imp force or tries to sweep blatant widespread attrocities under the rug.

So lets reapply that same logic...

The sheer fact of the matter, one which is conveniently side stepped here again and again, is that the bombings are but one fraction of expression of imperialism going on right now. Without those bombings or military involvement I guess according to some here everything would be a-okay. . This is like saying well we have a hornet and a slightly bigger hornet...which one do you like less in your car.

What I am trying to get through to you is that the bombings are irrelevant and that there is not a single instance in that conflict which is not continued imperialism or the continued result of imperialism. The, haphazard, military intervention is irrelevant for this.

What I am also trying to get through to you is that this continued singling out of faction and taking them out of context is damaging. Not only for a proper analysis of the situation but also to creating an adequate response in organisation and activism as well as explaining it to the general population.

What you also fail to realize is that there is no non-imperialist faction active in the region. None. Yet you are focussing your energies on that...and pretend the fuck out of your little fucking make pretend pipe-dream that ISIS is some regional force of raggetytaggety angry and upset Muslims rather than a coordinated well armed and well funded nation with clear, precise and very well outlined strategic, economic and religious expansionists views...and that they are currently winning.

From your little armchair behind your nice comfy computer in some western country it is all nice and well to make such black and white distinctions citing theory and using the ruler to measure the collective size of our collective revolutionary penisses in order to see which is the largest and bestests....however....try living in a region currently threatened by ISIS. See how much your ideological purity really matters.

So instead of giving us these ideological platitudes...actually make some useful analysis.

So I am sure that there is some real value for the Kurds, Iraqi's, Syrians currenlty living under threat of or in regions controlled by ISIS if we all collectively march to our nearest US embassy to wave out nice little flags around and shout our rigtheous indignation at the walls and the marines guarding the building...I am sure that is of huge help to them.

Now kindly make one thing perfectly clear:

Are you claiming that ISIS is preferable to US/EU bourgeois capitalist democracy?

Because for all your posturing...that is actually what it comes down to.

A person does not need to choose a side fighting on the ground to oppose the intervention of the invading imperialist country. That assumption you keep making is convenient for your argument, as it allows you to try to stake a phony moral high ground by painting people as sympathetic to ISIS, but my example in the post you're responding to makes it perfectly clear that your assumption is flawed. Once that assumption is removed, we're left with the reality that some people on the forum, whether they are aware of it or not, envision imperialist powers acting as progressive forces in the context of the international stage ... because the other guys in the invaded country are so, so bad. They'll never state this, because that would be taboo. That, however, is essentially the argument they are making when stripped of all the superfluous sidebars and qualifiers. It is no wonder they cling to those qualifiers about context.

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 22:54

A person does not need to choose a side fighting on the ground to oppose the intervention of the invading imperialist country. That assumption you keep making is convenient for your argument, as it allows you to try to stake a phony moral high ground by painting people as sympathetic to ISIS, but my example in the post you're responding to makes it perfectly clear that your assumption is flawed. Once that assumption is removed, we're left with the reality that some people on the forum, whether they are aware of it or not, envision imperialist powers acting as progressive forces in the context of the international stage ... because the other guys in the invaded country are so, so bad. They'll never state this, because that would be taboo. That, however, is essentially the argument they are making when stripped of all the superfluous sidebars and qualifiers. It is no wonder they cling to those qualifiers about context.

Actually it is you who is doing exactly that. And that is the argument you keep conveniently ignoring, side stepping and straw manning.

Now lets place this into argumentative context for you...this whole thread has been about one faction in the conflict. Your entire line of argument is based on perceived support for that one faction based on some dodgy reasoning about arguments of other users...at the expense of proper analysis of the situation in total.

Now you can whine about OMG do not support factions...but for all your posturing ...that is exactly what your argument comes down to. And then of course we have you lending support to the assertion that this is actually a revolutionary conflict....

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 23:01

Actually it is you who is doing exactly that. And that is the argument you keep conveniently ignoring, side stepping and straw manning.

Now lets place this into argumentative context for you...this whole thread has been about one faction in the conflict. Your entire line of argument is based on perceived support for that one faction based on some dodgy reasoning about arguments of other users...at the expense of proper analysis of the situation in total.

Now you can whine about OMG do not support factions...but for all your posturing ...that is exactly what your argument comes down to. And then of course we have you lending support to the assertion that this is actually a revolutionary conflict....

You insist that anybody opposing US intervention in the Middle Eastern conflict between Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and non-state bands of sunni militias operating under the monicker of ISIS is choosing a side in that conflict.

Let me ask you this, then. When I demonstrated against American intervention in the Egyptian revolution of 2011, which side was I supporting in that conflict?

When I demonstrated against American intervention in the Libyan civil war, which side of the conflict was I supporting?

The answer is none. I can tell a person not to interfere in a fight without taking a side in that fight. Your model requires it, because it conveniently muddles the issue just enough for you to plausibly be able to state outright reactionary ideas while keeping a straight face.

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 23:09

You insist that anybody opposing US intervention in the Middle Eastern conflict between Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and non-state bands of sunni militias operating under the monicker of ISIS is choosing a side in that conflict.

Let me ask you this, then. When I demonstrated against American intervention in the Egyptian revolution of 2011, which side was I supporting in that conflict?

When I demonstrated against American intervention in the Libyan civil war, which side of the conflict was I supporting?

The answer is none. I can tell a person not to interfere in a fight without taking a side in that fight. Your model requires it, because it conveniently muddles the issue just enough for you to plausibly be able to state outright reactionary ideas while keeping a straight face.

ISIS is not a non state band. They are a state.

I don't care who you were supporting...but the fact that you are not taking a side in a fight and say nobody needs to get involved is in fact theoretically nice...but explain this to the Kurds threatened by ISIS. Get my drift there?

This is NOT an internal struggle like your nice little bourgeois revolution in Egypt. This is a war between nations. And one of them is winning and that side has the policy to sell girls and women in sex slavery and thinks it is perfectly ok to marry 13 year old girls.

So who are you going to protest in that little sideshow?

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 23:12

ISIS is not a non state band. They are a state.

I don't care who you were supporting...but the fact that you are not taking a side in a fight and say nobody needs to get involved is in fact theoretically nice...but explain this to the Kurds threatened by ISIS. Get my drift there?

This is NOT an internal struggle like your nice little bourgeois revolution in Egypt. This is a war between nations. And one of them is winning and that side has the policy to sell girls and women in sex slavery and thinks it is perfectly ok to marry 13 year old girls.

So who are you going to protest in that little sideshow?

Even if it were a state, it's possible to oppose all the bourgeois states involved. Should we expect even that modicum of revolutionary clarity from an administrator of the Revolutionary left forum? Of course not. In the event that we all lived in a parallel universe where your definition of imperialism was remotely close to one that anybody has ever used, the point still remains that the admin claimed some bourgeois states should be opposed while others should not be. Yet we are the one who are to be chided for taking sides. Impressive bit of twisting there.

Protesting against American involvement in the Iraq-Iran war is not support for either one of the sides.

Protesting against American, Iraqi, and Iranian involvement in the Iraq-Iran war is not support for any of the sides.

This is all simple logic. Your position, for some odd reason that we can all guess at, mandates that we ignore logic.

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 23:24

Even if it were a state, it's possible to oppose all the bourgeois states involved. Should we expect even that modicum of revolutionary clarity from an administrator of the Revolutionary left forum? Of course not. In the event that we all lived in a parallel universe where your definition of imperialism was remotely close to one that anybody has ever used, the point still remains that the admin claimed some bourgeois states should be opposed while others should not be. Yet we are the one who are to be chided for taking sides. Impressive bit of twisting there.

Protesting against American involvement in the Iraq-Iran war is not support for either one of the sides.

Protesting against American, Iraqi, and Iranian involvement in the Iraq-Iran war is not support for any of the sides.

This is all simple logic. Your position, for some odd reason that we can all guess at, mandates that we ignore logic.

Really...because I am not seeing you opposing any other side actually. What I am seeing you doing is putting a lot of effort in chiding people based on false and subjective assumptions about their position and on the idiological fallacy that somehow the ultimate stamp of revolutionary approval is based on whether or not you support the US/EU bombings.

Ow and of course I am seeing you sidestepping a whole lot of inconvenient arguments so you can continue to measure the size of your revolutionary penis while also lending your support to the assertion that this is a revolutionary conflict.

But your have yet not addressed my question. So let me repeat it here and let me add to this....so you have an option:

Are you claiming that ISIS is preferable to US/EU bourgeois capitalist democracy? Or do you not see a difference?

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 23:35

But your have yet not addressed my question. So let me repeat it here and let me add to this....so you have an option:

Are you claiming that ISIS is preferable to US/EU bourgeois capitalist democracy? Or do you not see a difference?

Are you claiming that whether a bourgeois state is democratic or dictatorial should be a dividing line between whether their military deployment is opposed or not? I'm just wondering, because that sounds an awful lot like choosing sides among bourgeois states, which is exactly what you fault people for doing throughout the thread.

Your position reminds me a lot of people who criticized me for not voting for Barack Obama, because he was the more democratic and progressive bourgeois candidate. It's all about the context, they would be quick to remind me. Either John McCain or Obama would be president...

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 23:43

Are you claiming that whether a bourgeois state is democratic or dictatorial should be a dividing line between whether their military deployment is opposed or not? I'm just wondering, because that sounds an awful lot like choosing sides among bourgeois states.

Your position reminds me a lot of people who criticized me for not voting for Barack Obama, because he was the more democratic and progressive bourgeois candidate. It's all about the context, they would be quick to remind me. Either John McCain or Obama would be president...

I don't see you answering my question....yet again. I wonder why. For somebody who just said that everything was so simple and logical this shouldn't pose too much of a challenge.

Let me repeat it again...quite obviously you must have missed it the first two times...

Are you claiming that ISIS is preferable to US/EU bourgeois capitalist democracy? Or do you not see a difference?

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 23:49

I don't see you answering my question....yet again. I wonder why. For somebody who just said that everything was so simple and logical this shouldn't pose too much of a challenge.

Let me repeat it again...quite obviously you must have missed it the first two times...

Are you claiming that ISIS is preferable to US/EU bourgeois capitalist democracy? Or do you not see a difference?

Prefer for what? If you want an answer to your question, you're going to have to be more specific.

In bourgeois democracies, democracy is a working-class achievement that has been robbed of its progressive content by being turned against the proletariat. In bourgeois dictatorships, democracy can only be achieved by a working-class rising as a class in pursuit of its economic interests.

In the first instance, mobilization of the working class is more difficult because of propaganda that workers can choose to vote change into office through its democratic rights. In the second instance, workers cannot be so easily fooled--the brute force with which the bourgeoisie rules is on open display for all to see. Which is politically preferable you ask? They are equally preferable for a socialist whose goal is the overturning of capitalism, and not just its perpetual reforming. They have different pluses and minuses when viewed from that abstract of a perspective.

A revolutionary doesn't choose sides between a "better" bourgeois candidate and a more reactionary one. Neither does a revolutionary distinguish between democratic and authoritarian bourgeois states in order to choose sides in their wars.

PhoenixAsh

15th October 2014, 23:52

Prefer for what? If you want an answer to your question, you're going to have to be more specific.

In bourgeois democracies, democracy is a working-class achievement that has been robbed of its progressive content by being turned against the proletariat. In bourgeois dictatorships, democracy can only be achieved by a working-class rising as a class in pursuit of its economic interests.

In the first instance, mobilization of the working class is more difficult because of propaganda that workers can choose to vote change into office through its democratic rights. In the second instance, workers cannot be so easily fooled--the brute force with which the bourgeoisie rules is on open display for all to see. Which is politically preferable you ask? They are equally preferable for a socialist whose goal is the overturning of capitalism, and not just its perpetual reforming.

A revolutionary doesn't choose sides between a "better" bourgeois candidate and a more reactionary one. Neither does a revolutionary distinguish between democratic and authoritarian bourgeois states in order to choose sides in their wars.

The question was and is quite simple and you are dodging it...yet again...with your nice little platitudes.

So let me ask you the same question differently....would you, as a worker, prefer to live in the EU or in ISIS territory? And as a woman?

Sharia Lawn

15th October 2014, 23:56

The question was and is quite simple and you are dodging it...yet again...with your nice little platitudes.

So let me ask you the same question differently....would you, as a worker, prefer to live in the EU or in ISIS territory? And as a woman?

Your question presupposes I choose a side between bourgeois states. This is presumably so you can fault me for choosing sides, when I've made perfect clearly that I am not taking one. Clever, that.

You insist I choose sides, because you want me to choose YOUR side. The side of the imperialists, of course.

This is not even speaking to the irony of you offendedly demanding I answer your question, when you facetiously dismissed my asking you what your definition of imperialism is. I guess not all questions are created equal, just as - in your view - not all bourgeois states are. Some deserve to be answered, and some deserve to be supported in their military conquests.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 00:00

Your question presupposes I choose a side between bourgeois states. This is presumably so you can fault me for choosing sides, when I've made perfect clearly that I am not taking one. Clever, that.

You insist I choose sides, because you want me to choose YOUR side. The side of the imperialists, of course.

I am asking you a question...one which you repeatedly fail to answer and continue to dodge. Which is really, really suspicious if you ask me.

Because this isn't rocket science...really...you just a few posts ago claimed it is all really simple, doesn't need context and really is all logical.

I don't really understand how hard it is for you to answer one single and simple question....

would you, as a worker, prefer to live in the EU or in ISIS territory? And as a woman?

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 00:07

I am asking you a question...one which you repeatedly fail to answer and continue to dodge. Which is really, really suspicious if you ask me.

Because this isn't rocket science...really...you just a few posts ago claimed it is all really simple, doesn't need context and really is all logical.

I don't really understand how hard it is for you to answer one single and simple question....

would you, as a worker, prefer to live in the EU or in ISIS territory? And as a woman?

I answered your question: as a revolutionary socialist, I have no preference as far as picking which one is more likely to have an interest in actively catering to the interests of the working class. All bourgeois states have interests directly opposing the interests of the working class.

If I were pick one on the basis of where workers' interests are more institutionalized in the way the state governs, I would pick the EU country. But here's the rub: those interests are more established not as a result of workers supporting their bourgeois states, but by workers opposing them militarily and politically.

You want to collapse that distinction, and emphasize Western workers' greater historical success in bringing the bourgeois state to heel, for reasons mostly of the historical accident that workers of early-developing countries did not have imperialist invaders to battle against in addition to their native bourgeoisies. I think your reason for that is clear. You want me to pick a bourgeoisie to support.

If I were a bourgeois feminist, as you seem to be, I would definitely choose the EU. I could then be a female manager working alongside my male comrades at a large defense firm that makes fighter jets to blow up third-world babies.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 00:11

I answered your question: as a revolutionary socialist, I have no preference as far as picking which one is more likely to have an interest in actively catering to the interests of the working class. All bourgeois states have interests directly opposing the interests of the working class.

If I were pick one on the basis of where workers' interests are more established, I would pick the EU country. But here's the rub: those interests are more established not as a result of workers supporting their bourgeois states, but by workers opposing them militarily and politically.

You want to collapse that distinction, and emphasize Western workers' greater historical success in bringing the bourgeois state to heel, for reasons mostly of historical accident that the workers of early-developing countries did not have imperialist invaders to battle against in addition to their native bourgeoisies.

If I were a bourgeois feminist, as you seem to be, I would definitely choose the EU. I could then be a female manager at a large defense firm that makes fighter jets to blow up third-world babies.

Well first off your first paragraph was more of your dodging and not actually answering my question. The rest of your post is you basically saying there is a difference between bourgeois states.

Now that we established that little fact and you well and truely admitted that...this just undermined your entire little rethoric spiel there. You make some nice windowdressing backpeddling arguments....at the end of the day you obviously see a difference in preferability of living standards and worker standards.

No klindly shut the fuck up for the rest of the debate about your revolutionary dick measuring contest. K? Thnx.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 00:20

Well first off your first paragraph was more of your dodging and not actually answering my question. The rest of your post is you basically saying there is a difference between bourgeois states.

Now that we established that little fact and you well and truely admitted that...this just undermined your entire little rethoric spiel there. You make some nice windowdressing backpeddling arguments....at the end of the day you obviously see a difference in preferability of living standards and worker standards.

No klindly shut the fuck up for the rest of the debate about your revolutionary dick measuring contest. K? Thnx.

I am not sure I can spell this out anymore clearly. "Preference" is ambiguous. Do I prefer to go to a movie or go to bed? Well, when I am tired, I prefer bed. When I have nothing to do and am not tired, I prefer the movies.

Do I prefer the EU or territory under ISIS control in Iraq? From the perspective of class, it might actually be easier to establish a workers state in Iraq. If humanity were doomed by the nature of the species to live forever under capitalism, then I would choose the bourgeois state with the highest standard of living.

As far as this discussion goes, that doesn't get us very far. Socialism is an option, and it's an option because of the objective interests of the working class. From the perspective of struggling for socialism, which is what I thought all the members of the forum were supposed to be interested in, there is no difference between supporting politically one bourgeois state or another. They are both the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

There is a difference in the quality of life -- because workers at one point were smart enough to see through the rhetoric of people like you, who argue that we must make shades of distinction between factions within the bourgeoisie, and between democratic and non-democratic bourgeoisies.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th October 2014, 00:33

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 00:42

I am not sure I can spell this out anymore clearly. "Preference" is ambiguous. Do I prefer to go to a movie or go to bed? Well, when I am tired, I prefer bed. When I have nothing to do and am not tired, I prefer the movies.

Do I prefer the EU or territory under ISIS control in Iraq? From the perspective of class, it might actually be easier to establish a workers state in Iraq. If humanity were doomed by the nature of the species to live forever under capitalism, then I would choose the bourgeois state with the highest standard of living.

As far as this discussion goes, that doesn't get us very far. Socialism is an option, and it's an option because of the objective interests of the working class. From the perspective of struggling for socialism, which is what I thought all the members of the forum were supposed to be interested in, there is no difference between supporting one bourgeois state or another. They are both the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

There is a difference in the quality of life -- because workers at one point were smart enough to see through the rhetoric of people like you, who argue that we must make shades of distinction between factions within the bourgeoisie.

blablablabla <backpeddling> .... and rehashing of theory you just entirely contradicted.

Because the fact of the matter is not all bourgeois states are the same. And there is a difference between them. And for the people living in actual reality rather than books that difference matters...greatly.

Now to return to my original argument...the one I was making before you actually started to pretend that this was a revolutionary conflict and attacking me over adressing that issue...

As far as I am concerned this whole shitfest IS imperialism in progress for all angles.

Mindlessly focussing on Western imperialism kind of creates the dichotomy that there therefore is a worse and less worse kind of imperialism.

...and that...is actually what you are doing.

But you are too blinded by your revolutionary zeal that you have failed to notice that by ignoring the context you are focussing attention on that single aspect in lieu of a proper analysis and drawing attention away from what is actually happening.

Lily Briscoe

16th October 2014, 00:46

Besides, where does this assumption that Iraq after imperialist intervention would be anything like the EU come from?

Yeah, I'm pretty curious about this as well...

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 00:49

Besides, where does this assumption that Iraq after imperialist intervention would be anything like the EU come from? That's not how imperialism works. Imperialism does not combat backwardness - it entrenches it as the imperialist bourgeoisie need an economy of a particular type - a backward economy - to efficiently exploit an area. I mean this is pretty basic stuff. That is why communists would fight against imperialist intervention even against a fascist regime.

Really? Because I seem to recollect the communists and assorted communist parties really working closely with the Allied powers to defeat the Nazi's.

So no.

Nobody argued anything about Iraq would be the same as the EU...again this seems to be your problem actually comprehending things and simply making shit up

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th October 2014, 01:00

Really? Because I seem to recollect the communists and assorted communist parties really working closely with the Allied powers to defeat the Nazi's.

So no.

Then your recollections is faulty - or you don't grasp what being a communist entails. Things like no-strike pledges are a betrayal. Genuine communists did not work with the Allies, period.

Nobody argued anything about Iraq would be the same as the EU...again this seems to be your problem actually comprehending things and simply making shit up

Oh, so you were asking Izvestia about their residence plans? Dearie me, I must have gotten all confused by how this exchange happened right in the middle of a thread about imperialist intervention in Syria.

The point is still the same - if the imperialists win, they will merely install another bourgeois sectarian regime - like the Iraqi government - and nothing will have changed except for thousands of people dead from "targeted" bombing. So to turn your own question on you: would you rather live in an are ruled by Sunni militias or Shi'a militias sponsored by the US?

Tim Cornelis

16th October 2014, 01:00

As far as this discussion goes, that doesn't get us very far. Socialism is an option, and it's an option because of the objective interests of the working class. From the perspective of struggling for socialism, which is what I thought all the members of the forum were supposed to be interested in, there is no difference between supporting politically one bourgeois state or another. They are both the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot..

Not exactly. Struggling for a liberal democracy by rallying behind such a popularly backed demand, when socialism cannot reasonably and realistically be struggled for, is a progressive demand. Liberal democracy allows the establishment of open, above ground, independent working class organisations, trade unions, and parties -- which is certainly beneficial to the working class.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 01:04

blablablabla <backpeddling> .... and rehashing of theory you just entirely contradicted.

Because the fact of the matter is not all bourgeois states are the same. And there is a difference between them. And for the people living in actual reality rather than books that difference matters...greatly.

Now to return to my original argument...the one I was making before you actually started to pretend that this was a revolutionary conflict and attacking me over adressing that issue...

...and that...is actually what you are doing.

But you are too blinded by your revolutionary zeal that you have failed to notice that by ignoring the context you are focussing attention on that single aspect in lieu of a proper analysis and drawing attention away from what is actually happening.

It should probably clue you in that you aren't responding to me that your rebuttal contains nothing more than the statement of a fact that I would not disagree with: standards of living are higher in the West than they are in Syria or Iraq.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 01:08

Not exactly. Struggling for a liberal democracy by rallying behind such a popularly backed demand, when socialism cannot reasonably and realistically be struggled for, is a progressive demand. Liberal democracy allows the establishment of open, above ground, independent working class organisations, trade unions, and parties -- which is certainly beneficial to the working class.

If you're an Iraqi struggling for Iraqi democracy, yes, that is a progressive demand. If you are an Iraqi struggling for American "democracy," as PhoenixAsh would have it? No.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 01:22

Then your recollections is faulty - or you don't grasp what being a communist entails. Things like no-strike pledges are a betrayal. Genuine communists did not work with the Allies, period.

You are wrong. Period.

Oh, so you were asking Izvestia about their residence plans? Dearie me, I must have gotten all confused by how this exchange happened right in the middle of a thread about imperialist intervention in Syria.

The point is still the same - if the imperialists win, they will merely install another bourgeois sectarian regime - like the Iraqi government - and nothing will have changed except for thousands of people dead from "targeted" bombing. So to turn your own question on you: would you rather live in an are ruled by Sunni militias or Shi'a militias sponsored by the US?

Get it through your thick skull...ONLY imperialists will win. There is no NON-imperialist faction.

And that question is so ironic that you have no idea...

Sasha

16th October 2014, 01:23

Lol, because Syria doesn't have an sectarian bourgeois regime at the moment 870?

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 01:24

Get it through your thick skull...ONLY imperialists will win. There is no NON-imperialist faction.

And that question is so ironic that you have no idea...

Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah. "YOU MUST VOTE FOR OBAMA! THERE IS NO REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST CANDIDATE FOR YOU TO VOTE FOR!"

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 01:27

It should probably clue you in that you aren't responding to me that your rebuttal contains nothing more than the statement of a fact that I would not disagree with: standards of living are higher in the West than they are in Syria or Iraq.

You lying little scoundrel. Here...let me show you your blatant and obvious lies right from your own mouth....

If I were pick one on the basis of where workers' interests are more institutionalized in the way the state governs, I would pick the EU country. But here's the rub: those interests are more established not as a result of workers supporting their bourgeois states, but by workers opposing them militarily and politically.

You want to collapse that distinction, and emphasize Western workers' greater historical success in bringing the bourgeois state to heel, for reasons mostly of the historical accident that workers of early-developing countries did not have imperialist invaders to battle against in addition to their native bourgeoisies. I think your reason for that is clear. You want me to pick a bourgeoisie to support.

If I were a bourgeois feminist, as you seem to be, I would definitely choose the EU. I could then be a female manager working alongside my male comrades at a large defense firm that makes fighter jets to blow up third-world babies.

So no...it is NOT just the standard of living. You were specifically adressing workers interests and womens rights.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th October 2014, 01:29

You are wrong. Period.

On what account? Some of the anarchists on this site have an amusing affinity to theories about socialism in one country and, it seems, stagism as well.

Get it through your thick skull...ONLY imperialists will win. There is no NON-imperialist faction.

Again, we are all waiting for an explanation of how the IS, or the other sectarian militias, are imperialist. That should prove amusing at least.

And that question is so ironic that you have no idea...

Yes, in fact it was ironic, congratulations for correctly discerning my tone. Now, would you prefer to live under the IS or the Iraqi government?

Lol, because Syria doesn't have an sectarian bourgeois regime at the moment 870?

It does. Your point? At one point I had an entirely wrong line on Syria - although to be honest a lot of it was sheer disgust at the Glorious People's Islamist Revolution with Anarchist and Art-based Groups and its Western cheerleaders - but a wrong line nonetheless. In the mean time, I corrected that line. But you're still tailing Obama as you were back then.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 01:34

You lying little scoundrel. Here...let me show you your blatant and obvious lies right from your own mouth....

So no...it is NOT just the standard of living. You were specifically adressing workers interests and womens rights.

If I were addressing women's well-being, I would strive for socialism, not bourgeois rights enforced by your imaginary progressive imperialist regime. In that case, I would refer you to my earlier comment about supporting any bourgoieisie politically being equally suicidal.

Women's rights are not won in concert with the bourgeoisie. They are won against the bourgeoisie.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 01:34

Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah. "YOU MUST VOTE FOR OBAMA! THERE IS NO REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST CANDIDATE FOR YOU TO VOTE FOR!"

Really? Because for the Kurds ISIS is actually a foreign force.

Now....lets take this a step further because you obviously haven't learned to cut your losses.

Could you kindly show me the quote where I am:

1). Saying you should support the US
2). Saying you should support imperialism

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 01:39

Again, we are all waiting for an explanation of how the IS, or the other sectarian militias, are imperialist. That should prove amusing at least.

I already did. Welcome to the party late. I know this must be hard for you so do try to keep up.

Now don't add the sectarian militia's because I never included them. So kindly try to keep yoru straw manning and set up for your lies and distortions out of the debate for once.

Yes, in fact it was ironic, congratulations for correctly discerning my tone. Now, would you prefer to live under the IS or the Iraqi government?

You in fact have no actually fucking clue why I said that.

I love how you are white knighting here.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 01:40

Really? Because for the Kurds ISIS is actually a foreign force.

Now....lets take this a step further because you obviously haven't learned to cut your losses.

Could you kindly show me the quote where I am:

1). Saying you should support the US
2). Saying you should support imperialism

If you are neither supporting the US nor supporting any particular foreign imperialist power, why are you asking me about differences between the US and ISIS, as though one were more progressive and more deserving of political support (or less deserving of condemnation)?

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 01:41

If I were addressing women's well-being, I would strive for socialism, not bourgeois rights enforced by your imaginary progressive imperialist regime. In that case, I would refer you to my earlier comment about supporting any bourgoieisie politically being equally suicidal.

Women's rights are not won in concert with the bourgeoisie. They are won against the bourgeoisie.

Really? Because you just said that if you were a woman you would prefer to live in a burgeois democracy rather than ISIS territory.

So more ideological backpeddling here and more dishonesty from you.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 01:48

Really? Because you just said that if you were a woman you would prefer to live in a burgeois democracy rather than ISIS territory.

So more ideological backpeddling here and more dishonesty from you.

I said if I were a bourgeois woman, I would support bourgeois democracy. Then again, if I were a bourgeois woman, I would also be unwittingly enforcing patriarchy's capitalist roots -- as a woman. Since I am a socialist, and am not debating from the perspective of a bourgeois woman, the only contradiction is the one you've invented in your mind.

Skyhilist

16th October 2014, 01:49

Wait, people actually voted yes to this? This shouldn't even be a thing that we need to discuss; opposition should be automatic.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 01:52

Wait, people actually voted yes to this? This shouldn't even be a thing that we need to discuss; opposition should be automatic.

Based on how the discussion has unfolded, it's no mystery who the yes votes are likely to be.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 02:03

I said if I were a bourgeois woman, I would support bourgeois democracy. Then again, if I were a bourgeois woman, I would also be unwittingly enforcing patriarchy's capitalist roots -- as a woman. Since I am a socialist, and am not debating from the perspective of a bourgeois woman, the only contradiction is the one you've invented in your mind.

Actually your hypocracy is really, really obvious as was you completely contradicting yourself as are your pathetic and sad attempts to backpeddle.

Put please, please continue your pathetic attempt to pretend the working class women or socialist women would actually prefer ISIS territory and that there is no difference between bourgeoisie democracies and ISIS territory. :laugh:

And please continue to tell yourself that this is a revolutionary conflict. :laugh:

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 02:09

Based on how the discussion has unfolded, it's no mystery who the yes votes are likely to be.

Since I assume you are again alleging against me. I didn't vote for the poll.

Either way...this post is the embodyment why I am arguiong against you and your little revolutionary dick measuring contest.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 02:30

Actually your hypocracy is really, really obvious as was you completely contradicting yourself as are your pathetic and sad attempts to backpeddle.

Put please, please continue your pathetic attempt to pretend the working class women or socialist women would actually prefer ISIS territory and that there is no difference between bourgeoisie democracies and ISIS territory. :laugh:

And please continue to tell yourself that this is a revolutionary conflict. :laugh:

Where did I say that working class (socialist) women would prefer ISIS territory? Where did I say that their interests were more aligned to ISIS territory?

I have argued against pretending that "democratic" bourgeois society, without any additional detail about how workers are mobilized, is preferable to an authoritarian bourgeois society, for a revolutionary socialist. You are the one who keeps trying to rank bourgeoisies, independent of the agency of the working class, in order to take the side of the ruling classes, because you still haven't learned the revolutionary lesson that ruling classes only behave better when they are reigned in by the exploited and oppressed, not because it is in the ruling class's interest. Your analysis, which ignores the working class in motion, misses this.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 02:41

Where did I say that working class (socialist) women would prefer ISIS territory? I have only argued against pretending that "democratic" bourgeois society, without any additional detail about how workers are mobilized, is preferable to an authoritarian bourgeois society, for a socailist. You are the one who keeps trying to rank bourgeoisies, independent of the agency of the working class, in order to take the side of the ruling classes. For a bourgeois woman who has class interests aligned with capital, it's an easy choice to make. For a socialist woman, you have to dig a little deeper.

O god you are really dumb.

What you did there and right here again is completely contradict your notion that there is no difference between bourgeois states.

Quite obviously there is a difference and for actual people (and I am repeating myself here) that difference matters and is quite great.

And here you are...pretending that it somehow is really, really important whether or not we completely and utterly focus on US bombings. Yet in doing so you detract away the attention from the actual situation and an actual proper analysis. And in doing so you are ranking bourgeois nations.

Now...you can try to weasel yourself out of that one. So let me quote you on that:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2793638&postcount=139

Now we have you contradicting yourself, disproving your own theory, lying, backpeddling and of course making a whole lot of false claims and allegations.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 02:49

O god you are really dumb.

What you did there and right here again is completely contradict your notion that there is no difference between bourgeois states.

Quite obviously there is a difference and for actual people (and I am repeating myself here) that difference matters and is quite great.

And here you are...pretending that it somehow is really, really important whether or not we completely and utterly focus on US bombings. Yet in doing so you detract away the attention from the actual situation and an actual proper analysis. And in doing so you are ranking bourgeois nations.

Now...you can try to weasel yourself out of that one. So let me quote you on that:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2793638&postcount=139

Now we have you contradicting yourself, disproving your own theory, lying, backpeddling and of course making a whole lot of false claims and allegations.

There is literally nothing of substance in this post. You've been reduced to hurling empty accusations and can't even be bothered to quote the alleged contradictions you imagine exist. I've been around the forum long enough to know how you operate.

I invite you to have the last word, which will predictably be filled with all sorts of unsupported claims about my politics and posts. Literate people browsing this thread have enough from both of us to arrive at an educated conclusion about who here is boosting imperialism by picking bourgeois favorites and slinging mud to try to mask their collaborationism. Any additional posts directed at you would be a waste of time.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 03:31

There is literally nothing of substance in this post. You've been reduced to hurling empty accusations and can't even be bothered to quote the alleged contradictions you imagine exist. I've been around the forum long enough to know how you operate.

I invite you to have the last word, which will predictably be filled with all sorts of unsupported claims about my politics and posts. Literate people browsing this thread have enough from both of us to arrive at an educated conclusion about who here is boosting imperialism by picking bourgeois favorites and slinging mud to try to mask their collaborationism. Any additional posts directed at you would be a waste of time.

Lol.

O you were thinking we were having a discussion about who here is boosting imperialism?

No...we actually weren't. What we were having a discussion over is your asinine focus on a singular subjective fraction of a complex situation, ignoring everything else and turning it into a revolutionary dick measuring contest and then pretending that the conflict is actually a revolutionary conflict where there is an imperialist side and a non-imperialist side. In the meantime you accuse members here of qualifying some factions over others....while doing the exact same thing.

Now...for accusations to be empty they need to be unsubstantiated in quotes. I quoted you several times stating things you claim you hadn't said or weren't doing.

Rosa Partizan

16th October 2014, 07:21

Invader Zim

16th October 2014, 09:07

Then your recollections is faulty - or you don't grasp what being a communist entails. Things like no-strike pledges are a betrayal. Genuine communists did not work with the Allies, period.

Ha:

Me: "Communists, and large numbers of them, did back the Western powers both in 1939 and then in even greater numbers after 1941 - unless you [870] are going to play a no-true-Scotsman fallacy."

Your predeliction for logical and informal fallacies, is, if nothing else, abolutely predictable.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 11:46

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th October 2014, 11:52

Slavic

16th October 2014, 12:00

Thirsty Crow

16th October 2014, 12:02

Ha:

Me: "Communists, and large numbers of them, did back the Western powers both in 1939 and then in even greater numbers after 1941 - unless you [870] are going to play a no-true-Scotsman fallacy."

Your predeliction for logical and informal fallacies, is, if nothing else, abolutely predictable.

The basic attitude expressed by 870, one that I share, can be reformulated. It ois the formulation which enables the charge of this logical fallacy; it's unimportant whether these were "genuine communists", and it is equally unimportant whether lots of em backed the Allies, since the assessment is that this was a horrid political approach*. I'd very much like to distinguish my politics from the politics of that kind of communists. And precisely this - the wish to distinguish one's politics from that kind of politics advocated and practiced by other communists - is the source of the rhetorical moves like "no genuine communist supports/practices X" which lends itself easily to the no true Scotsman interpretation (while it is, as a matter of fact, a shorthand for saying "communists ought to do/support this-and-this for that-and-that reason and not X - x here being supporting the Allied war effort).

*Of course, the political position itself is open for debate and discussion, but it would be futile to conduct it either in terms of violently denouncing people as "false communists" or to pretend that I don't have a definite and clear cut view on this.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 12:13

Phoenix, I'm not quite sure about that "where would workers/feminists rather live" anyway. Any person born and raised in the western culture (no matter if bourgeois or not) saying they don't know if they would prefer living under IS regime or in a bourgeois democracy, are lying fucks anyway, so what's the point?

Yeah, pretty much. The entire discussion about where this or that person would rather live was a deliberate attempt to distract from the fact that it was brought up that an admin on the forum openly stated he would not oppose American imperial intervention in a particular case.

The user PhoenixAsh tried to pinkwash this by insisting (wrongly) that it was impossible to oppose all the sides of a conflict. If a person opposed US intervention in a case where it was attacking reactionaries, then that person necessarily had to be supporting the reactionaries. Nevermind the possibility of opposing both the US and the reactionaries.

When that possibility was brought to his attention, he tried to pinkwash his tacit support for imperialism by asking whther the US or a group of reactionary Islamists were governing territorities more hospitable for women to live. This implied an argument PhoenixAsh was too much of a coward to make explicit: we should oppose ISIS but not the US.

It was brought to his attention that real differences in quality of life and democratic rights existed only as a result of historical and contemporary working-class struggle against the dictates of capital. Rather than neutral conveyor of the democracy the working-class in its territory fought for, the US military is actually an impediment globally to democratic movements, including struggles to eliminate patriarchy's objective class basis.

Exposed once again, PhoenixAsh pretended this argument was the same as claiming that ISIS territory and US territory are exactly the same.

That's where we ended, and since I think PhoenixAsh's politics have been put on display clearly enough for everybody to see, I have no intention of allowing him to raise more distractions in subsequent back-and-forth pointlessness.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 12:15

Lord Testicles

16th October 2014, 12:21

The user PhoenixAsh tried to pinkwash this by insisting (wrongly) that it was impossible to oppose all the sides of a conflict. If a person opposed US intervention in a case where it was attacking reactionaries, then that person necessarily had to be supporting the reactionaries. Nevermind the possibility of opposing both the US and the reactionaries.

When that possibility was brought to his attention, he tried to pinkwash his tacit support for imperialism by asking whther the US or a group of reactionary Islamists were governing territorities more hospitable for women to live. This implied an argument PhoenixAsh was too much of a coward to make explicit: we should oppose ISIS but not the US.

Pinkwash?

pinkwashing

The practice (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/practice) of a company (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/company) using support (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/support) of breast cancer (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/breast_cancer)-related charities (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charities) to promote (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/promote) itself and its products (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/products) or services (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/services).
(LGBT (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/LGBT)) The practice (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/practice) of presenting (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/presenting) something, particularly a state (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/state), as gay-friendly (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gay-friendly) in order to soften (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soften) or downplay (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/downplay) aspects (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aspects) of its reputation (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reputation) considered negative (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negative).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pinkwashing

I think the word you are looking for is whitewash. :glare:

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 12:26

Pinkwash?

pinkwashing

The practice (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/practice) of a company (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/company) using support (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/support) of breast cancer (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/breast_cancer)-related charities (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charities) to promote (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/promote) itself and its products (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/products) or services (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/services).
(LGBT (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/LGBT)) The practice (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/practice) of presenting (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/presenting) something, particularly a state (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/state), as gay-friendly (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gay-friendly) in order to soften (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soften) or downplay (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/downplay) aspects (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aspects) of its reputation (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reputation) considered negative (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negative).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pinkwashing

I think the word you are looking for is whitewash. :glare:

If you combine the first and second meanings, you'll see what I was driving at. The practice of presenting supposed support of women's issues as a way to downplay negative aspects. I am aware it is normally used only with respect to gay issues, but because the color pink is gender coded as well...

Lord Testicles

16th October 2014, 12:28

If you combine the first and second meanings, you'll see what I was driving at. The practice of presenting supposed support of women's issues as a way to downplay negative aspects. I am aware it is normally used only with respect to gay issues, but because the color pink is gender coded as well...

How about you stop trying to be Shakespeare and just use language that expresses your point clearly.

Thirsty Crow

16th October 2014, 12:28

No offense Links,

But that policy is horrid. It is nice on paper but during war time and and actually occupation by a Nazi regime the idea that ideological purity is workable or a policy that is both efficient and benefitting the working class is pure nonsense. The realities vastly change from a society where we fight the rise of fascism to a reality where Nazism is the dominant force and Communism is threatened by annihilatioj on unprecedented scale. The idea that there is no difference between the bourgeois democracies and nazist/fascist states...really not flying.

I'm not sure whether this is too big of an off topic. Oh well.

The thing is, the alleged idea that there is no difference between authoritarian/fascist state forms and liberal democracy is itself an imputed straw man; I don't hold such a view (since if I didn't at all distinguish between them I wouldn't even accept different terms and would probably refuse to talk about fascism/liberal democracy). So that is the necessary first step in discussing this, to drop this untenable idea that my view is based on denying the differences between these.

Another thing is that such an approach actually doesn't orient itself towards being a "policy that is both efficient and benefitting the working class". Behind it is the recognition of what I previously called the irreducibly destructive character of the whole conflict situation; this implies communist militants simply can't do political work efficiently (which implies that class struggle had been suspended in favor of imperialist bloodletting).

You could propose reorienting towards a different kind of a concept of efficient work on behalf of communists; for instance, to support and take part in the war or resistance movements. I wouldn't agree with that, and the reason is precisely that I view the potential for communists' activity as decisive. But what is also deciseive is to potentially preserve the minimum of contact with the class and simultaneously preserve our clarity in assessing the situation and organizing activity, and I don't think this is furthered by such shifts as I sketched above. You can of course dismiss this as "ideological purity" - but I think programmatic, theoretical and practical "purity" along class lines is necessary. It is workable in one sense but probably not in the one you'd intend.

Invader Zim

16th October 2014, 17:08

Except, of course, my statement did not constitute a no-true-Scotsman fallacy as being a communist (or socialist, most of the relevant people use these terms interchangeably) entails more than just calling oneself a communist (or socialist). That's why no one cared for the "communism" of Niekisch or the "socialism" of Norman Thomas.

So, put simply, in your view, with the exception of a small cadre of factions, there were no 'true' communists between 1937-1945 in Britain. Because virtually all of them supported the Allies - largely because nearly all of them, whether or not they were Stalinists or otherwise, in a show of solidarity, backed the line of the Soviet Union, the Comintern, the CPGB, and the Daily Worker, and concluded that the destruction of the Soviet experiment by the Nazis was to be opposed, even if it meant siding with the British state. Moreover, the CPGB, which backed the Allied war effort after 1941 (after some fluctuation back and forth in 1939) rose to 60,000 members - which was far higher than 18,000 members it had when it began the war. By contrast, the largest wartime Trotskyite party in Britain, the Workers' International League, had 400 members by 1944. In other words, in Britain, communists flocked to the CPGB, which backed the Allied War effort from 1941, in their droves.

Meanwhile in France, even after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was heavily contested by lots of French CP members, only 1/5 actually left the Party in disgust. But, in exactly the same fashion, the CP backed national defense, until they were effectively ordered, from Moscow, to change their line to decrying the war as imperialist. Even under occupation, they didn't really change that stance, into armed struggle against the Nazis, until Stalin ordered them to in 1941. And the French CP had 800,000 members.

So, yeah. You are playing a no-true-scotsman fallacy - unless you are trying to basically dismiss nearly every communist and communist sympathizer in Britain and France in the Second World War, when the question of whether or not it was 'right' to back an imperialist power over a fascist power was an actual dilemma as opposed to an academic question to be pondered from behind a keyboard.

Indeed, the condescending snobbishness of your position is really quite breathtaking. Who are you to judge these people? Have you experienced their fears? No. Have you lived under Nazi occupation or under the very real possibility of occupation? No. Do you know how you would feel in their situation? Absolutely not. So what do you feel qualifies you to judge them? In fact, what makes you feel qualified to judge any ordinary people in the past living in extraordinary times? As the historian Richard J. Evans' says, those who judge people in the past succeed only 'in looking ridiculous'. Which sums you up nicely.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th October 2014, 17:17

So, put simply, in your view, with the exception of a small cadre of factions, there were no 'true' communists between 1937-1945 in Britain. Because virtually all of them supported the Allies - largely because nearly all of them, whether or not they were Stalinists or otherwise, in a show of solidarity, backed the line of the Soviet Union, the Comintern, the CPGB, and the Daily Worker, and concluded that the destruction of the Soviet experiment by the Nazis was to be opposed, even if it meant siding with the British state. Moreover, the CPGB, which backed the Allied war effort after 1941 (after some fluctuation back and forth in 1939) rose to 60,000 members - which was far higher than 18,000 members it had when it began the war. By contrast, the largest wartime Trotskyite party in Britain, the Workers' International League, had 400 members by 1944. In other words, in Britain, communists flocked to the CPGB, which backed the Allied War effort from 1941, in their droves.

Meanwhile in France, even after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was heavily contested by lots of French CP members, only 1/5 actually left the Party in disgust. But, in exactly the same fashion, the CP backed national defense, until they were effectively ordered, from Moscow, to change their line to decrying the war as imperialist. Even under occupation, they didn't really change that stance, into armed struggle against the Nazis, until Stalin ordered them to in 1941. And the French CP had 800,000 members.

So, yeah. You are playing a no-true-scotsman fallacy - unless you are trying to basically dismiss nearly every communist and communist sympathizer in Britain and France in the Second World War, when the question of whether or not it was 'right' to back an imperialist power over a fascist power was an actual dilemma as opposed to an academic question to be pondered from behind a keyboard.

Indeed, the condescending snobbishness of your position is really quite breathtaking. Who are you to judge these people? Have you experienced their fears? No. Have you lived under Nazi occupation or under the very real possibility of occupation? No. Do you know how you would feel in their situation? Absolutely not. So what do you feel qualifies you to judge them? In fact, what makes you feel qualified to judge any ordinary people in the past living in extraordinary times? As the historian Richard J. Evans' says, those who judge people in the past succeed only 'in looking ridiculous'. Which sums you up nicely.

Consistent communists have always been a minority, and contrary to the wild fantasies of some people here about a "party of millions", they always will be. For that matter, Trotskyists (or "Trotskyites" as you call them) had fought against the Nazis as well - a lot of the cadre of the Belgian and French sections died in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, including some of the brightest minds of the Fourth International. Yet they fought against Allied imperialism as well. And their struggle against the Nazis was a communist struggle - it included attempts at fraternisation with German soldiers, instead of the mindless disgusting nationalism of the various popular fronts and the "good, Allied" imperialist governments supported by those who betrayed.

As for my biography, I was born just before the civil war in Croatia. I lived - although I don't have as many memories from that period - under the threat of being killed in a military strike, or being deported by "my own" bourgeois government. There were people back then who supported one or the other faction of the bourgeoisie as well - in the UK you had enthusiastic supporters of Tuđman and Izetbegović like Thortnett. They betrayed. It might be easy to see why they did so, but they betrayed. I don't judge them personally - in fact I don't know any of them, and I don't care to know them. But when it comes to politics, which is ostensibly what we're here to discuss, they betrayed.

The example of Trotskyists and Left Communists during the war shows that it is more than possible to not betray.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 17:20

I'm not sure whether this is too big of an off topic. Oh well.

Well it would be an interesting discussion and it would probably deserve its own thread.

The thing is, the alleged idea that there is no difference between authoritarian/fascist state forms and liberal democracy is itself an imputed straw man; I don't hold such a view (since if I didn't at all distinguish between them I wouldn't even accept different terms and would probably refuse to talk about fascism/liberal democracy). So that is the necessary first step in discussing this, to drop this untenable idea that my view is based on denying the differences between these.

I agree with this and I am glad we are somewhat on the same page. So thank you for clarifying. I thought you were taking that position.

Another thing is that such an approach actually doesn't orient itself towards being a "policy that is both efficient and benefitting the working class". Behind it is the recognition of what I previously called the irreducibly destructive character of the whole conflict situation; this implies communist militants simply can't do political work efficiently (which implies that class struggle had been suspended in favor of imperialist bloodletting). You could propose reorienting towards a different kind of a concept of efficient work on behalf of communists; for instance, to support and take part in the war or resistance movements. I wouldn't agree with that, and the reason is precisely that I view the potential for communists' activity as decisive. But what is also deciseive is to potentially preserve the minimum of contact with the class and simultaneously preserve our clarity in assessing the situation and organizing activity, and I don't think this is furthered by such shifts as I sketched above. You can of course dismiss this as "ideological purity" - but I think programmatic, theoretical and practical "purity" along class lines is necessary. It is workable in one sense but probably not in the one you'd intend.

I make the distinction between three situations...and I will gloss over the first two. I am talking about point 3.

1). Communist action within a society that experiences the shift towards Fascism. Quite obviously...the communists/anarchists will work to radicalize and organize the working class. There is no basis for any cooperation with bourgeois groups or liberal groups.

2). Communist groups from "worker states" aligning themselves with bourgeois countries in order to overthrow or combat fascism in another country. There is no reason why communist groups can not exist and operate independently and they should.

3). Communist groups working inside a country dominated, led or occupied by fascist forces.

In this situation communism seizes to be a force which can organize or has access to large masses of the working class.

As happened in Germany and in most occupied regions. Communist groups and parties effectively had to go underground and were largely whiped out. Most communists and revolutionaries were incarcerated or executed but there were precious few opportunities to maintain an effective party structure that could survive without outside aid and information and were pretty much cut off from the opportunity of mass mobilization of the working class.

In this situation rejecting cooperation within the alliance against fascism would effectively mean the annihilation of revolutionary groups.

When I talk about efficiency...this means that at best these groups and communists were reduced to small operative cells which were doing their best to resist both occupation and doing a splendid job considering...but they had little real effect.

In those situations the primary and most vital concern should be the survival of the group and the preservation of a basis for the future while actively organizing within the constraints placed on them. In such instances cooperation with bourgeois countries, factions and groups surpasses any need to maintain ideological and practical purity and doing so makes no sense whatsoever.

Now this was effectively the situation in for example Holland where the communist party almost seized to exist because they were executed or marched off to concentration camps such as Mauthausen in droves. To call these people "no real communists" like 870 has done is...well...highly arrogant and deeply insulting.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 17:26

Consistent communists have always been a minority, and contrary to the wild fantasies of some people here about a "party of millions", they always will be. For that matter, Trotskyists (or "Trotskyites" as you call them) had fought against the Nazis as well - a lot of the cadre of the Belgian and French sections died in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, including some of the brightest minds of the Fourth International. Yet they fought against Allied imperialism as well. And their struggle against the Nazis was a communist struggle - it included attempts at fraternisation with German soldiers, instead of the mindless disgusting nationalism of the various popular fronts and the "good, Allied" imperialist governments supported by those who betrayed.

As for my biography, I was born just before the civil war in Croatia. I lived - although I don't have as many memories from that period - under the threat of being killed in a military strike, or being deported by "my own" bourgeois government. There were people back then who supported one or the other faction of the bourgeoisie as well - in the UK you had enthusiastic supporters of Tuđman and Izetbegović like Thortnett. They betrayed. It might be easy to see why they did so, but they betrayed. I don't judge them personally - in fact I don't know any of them, and I don't care to know them. But when it comes to politics, which is ostensibly what we're here to discuss, they betrayed.

The example of Trotskyists and Left Communists during the war shows that it is more than possible to not betray.

You are a fucking idiot. All of the groups mentioned were supplied through the UK at one point or another.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th October 2014, 17:27

3). Communist groups working inside a country dominated, led or occupied by fascist forces.

In this situation communism seizes to be a force which can organize or has access to large masses of the working class.

As happened in Germany and in most occupied regions. Communist groups and parties effectively had to go underground and were largely whiped out. Most communists and revolutionaries were incarcerated or executed but there were precious few opportunities to maintain an effective party structure that could survive without outside aid and information and were pretty much cut off from the opportunity of mass mobilization of the working class.

In this situation rejecting cooperation within the alliance against fascism would effectively mean the annihilation of revolutionary groups.

Only when the "alliance against fascism" wipes them out itself, as happened to the Vietnamese section of the Fourth International. Groups in France, in Belgium and so on survived the war - badly damaged and with international coordination disrupted - but they survived it. Then, when under the new International Secretary Pablo, these groups adopted the policy you advocate, they stopped being serious revolutionary groups.

You are a fucking idiot. All of the groups mentioned were supplied through the UK at one point or another.

What groups, the French and Belgian sections of the Fourth International? You're fantasising. Perhaps you could read some of A. Leon's writings from the period.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 17:53

Yeah, pretty much. The entire discussion about where this or that person would rather live was a deliberate attempt to distract from the fact that it was brought up that an admin on the forum openly stated he would not oppose American imperial intervention in a particular case.

The entire debate started over you defending the statement that this was a revolutionary conflict with linguism which included that there was no difference between bourgeois states.

Quite obviously there is. You have even admitted so yourself. The reason why there is a difference doesn't matter. What however does matter is that your platitudes don't apply. There is a world of difference for a Kurdish worker to live in Kurdistan or ISIS territory. There is a world of difference between being a worker in the US and a worker in the Netherlands.

And these differences actually matter.

Another reason why this debate started is your obvious willfull ignorance of the logical conclusion of your own position.

Your position...which you effectively repeat here is that there is a qualitative difference between US imperialism and ISIS imperialism. Because make no mistake. That is exactly what you are doing by excessively focussing on American imperialism and thereby maintianing the illusion that there is an imperialist evil faction and a non imperialist faction....

I will quote you from earlier in this thread when you were in fact attacking the statement that this is not a revolutionary conflict:

There's a word for it when one of the parties in the conflict is a foreign force belonging to a state representing the world's largest and most powerful business firms. Can you guess what it is?

And yet making such a qualification is exactly what you attack some members on.

The user PhoenixAsh tried to pinkwash this by insisting (wrongly) that it was impossible to oppose all the sides of a conflict. If a person opposed US intervention in a case where it was attacking reactionaries, then that person necessarily had to be supporting the reactionaries. Nevermind the possibility of opposing both the US and the reactionaries.

Lol.
That is demonstratively not true and you know this.

So in order to once again prove your lies...this is getting a habit...

Singling out one fraction of it based on the fact that it is committed by the US is faulty analysis and in essence it is bait and obfuscates the bigger picture: warring bourgeois factions.

What we have here is several bourgeois factions fighting for domination. Within the constellation of reactionary forces vying for power all trying to extend their powerbase well beyong their own region and impose their religious, political and economic domination on others....subjectively selecting one for specific focus creates an out of context analysis.

Mindlessly focussing on Western imperialism kind of creates the dichotomy that there therefore is a worse and less worse kind of imperialism.

But what we have in reality here is not you actively opposing all sides of the conflict. What you are doing, like I said over and over and over again, is subjectively focussing on a portion of what is happening on the basis that the US is doing it. You then conflagate a specific act, wrongly, as the epithomy of imperialism.

I have repeatedly told you that that narrow focus is both wrong and will distract from proper analysis and will obfuscate what is really happening.

When that possibility was brought to his attention, he tried to pinkwash his tacit support for imperialism by asking whther the US or a group of reactionary Islamists were governing territorities more hospitable for women to live. This implied an argument PhoenixAsh was too much of a coward to make explicit: we should oppose ISIS but not the US.

No it directly implies that your continued spweing of observably, factually, ideologically and even self admitted wrong and incorrect platitudes is beyond idiotic and really not helpful....because quite clearly the argument you made that there is no difference is completely and utterly false.

You even admitted this yourself (and I will re-quote part of your obvious lies yet again):

If I were pick one on the basis of where workers' interests are more institutionalized in the way the state governs, I would pick the EU country. But here's the rub: those interests are more established not as a result of workers supporting their bourgeois states, but by workers opposing them militarily and politically.

So obviously there is a huge difference when it comes to workers rights and the resulting ability to organize.

Not to mention we then indeed talked about womens rights. Now I understand that you being a man don't really understand women's rights or the difference between having at least some basic protection or simply being married of at age 13 or kept as a sex slave...but yeah...I think the people about to be overrun by ISIS might prefer not to be actually overrun by ISIS.

Yet....your claim is that there is no difference between bourgeois states from the perspective of the worker. So it shouldn't really make a difference from the workers perspective.

It how ever does. And like Rosa said...pretending otherwise is insane.

It was brought to his attention that real differences in quality of life and democratic rights existed only as a result of historical and contemporary working-class struggle against the dictates of capital. Rather than neutral conveyor of the democracy the working-class in its territory fought for, the US military is actually an impediment globally to democratic movements, including struggles to eliminate patriarchy's objective class basis.

You indeed did mention this. But since we are not talking about HOW the differences came to be it is quite an irrelevant argument. What you argued ad are effectively undermining yet again is that there is NO difference.

Now...it doesn't matter if the differences came to be because of effective workers organization etc. etc. Because the exit point is that...at this point in time and development...one has a much better basis for the working class than the other.

Exposed once again, PhoenixAsh pretended this argument was the same as claiming that ISIS territory and US territory are exactly the same.

Eh.. no. But I already you were an idiot and a liar...trying to pretend that you were actually making this argument is quite honestly just another example.

That's where we ended, and since I think PhoenixAsh's politics have been put on display clearly enough for everybody to see, I have no intention of allowing him to raise more distractions in subsequent back-and-forth pointlessness.

I really don't care what you are intending of allowing me.

You have been caught lying several times. It is frankly amazing that you continue to try and keep saddling up any kind of horse let alone the high one...

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 17:55

Only when the "alliance against fascism" wipes them out itself, as happened to the Vietnamese section of the Fourth International. Groups in France, in Belgium and so on survived the war - badly damaged and with international coordination disrupted - but they survived it. Then, when under the new International Secretary Pablo, these groups adopted the policy you advocate, they stopped being serious revolutionary groups.

What groups, the French and Belgian sections of the Fourth International? You're fantasising. Perhaps you could read some of A. Leon's writings from the period.

Dude...I don't have to read A. Leon. Whatever was left of them was at my grandfathers house for decades after the war.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th October 2014, 17:57

Dude...I don't have to read A. Leon. Whatever was left of them was at my grandfathers house for decades after the war.

Then all I can say is that it's pretty sad that you would attack Leon, one of the best of the Fourth International, and all he stood for, while applauding policies that led to Trotskyist and Left Communist groups everywhere being wiped out by the "good" imperialists.

Invader Zim

16th October 2014, 18:04

So, basically, you are playing the no-true-Scotsman card, very much running along tenancy lines - your way or the highway, as if only your opinion, and those who share it, hold some sacred objective truth regarding how a 'true' communist behaves when the Nazi bombs are falling.

Sorry, but you absolutely are judgmental of historical actors - which, in many respects actually disqualifies your opinion from being taken at all seriously. And your biography, of a time when you were in no position to construct or articulate a mature political/historical position, in no way redeems you from your folly.

Rafiq

16th October 2014, 18:52

Consistent communists have always been a minority, and contrary to the wild fantasies of some people here about a "party of millions"

Which only goes to prove, from his words alone, that 870 and the politics he represents is wholly petite-bourgeois. And at best, he (like most Trotskyists) personally exhibits the same snobbish groundless arrogance that Trotsky did.

Rafiq

16th October 2014, 19:20

It's also hilarious to see that he thinks that the alleged good deeds of Trotskyists during the second world war was somehow a form of class struggle - let's be clear, politics has to be socially contextual or it is not really politics at all. Because of the absence of a real class struggle - actively fighting the allies could only ever take the form of taking the side of the axis powers. That's entirely different from denouncing the war itself, or the no-strike rules. You cannot claim to represent the proletarian class when your politics are completely without any social context and are solely a result of the erroneous experiments and quarrels between intellectuals. In other words, positions which are "open to interpretation". And this is a funny phenomena, for Trotskyists the so-called "true line" is so open for interpretation that there doesn't exist a political current on the whole fucking planet which has as much splinters, factions and splits over the worst kind of bullshit. This is completely reflective of the essence of their politics - as elite "minorities", their politics has no social context, it therefore becomes a matter of who "interprets" the correct line. The correct line comes from the merger of Marxism (of the intelligentsia) and the worker's movement, not the academic disputes of so-called 'elites'. How ironic that the legacy of Trotsky, the arrogant piece of shit, was to completely perverse the Bolshevik method into creating a vast array of organizations composed of a bunch of mini-Trotsky's, mini-elitists swathing righteously in infantile arrogance.

Trotsky is the perfect biological organism - he was capable of successfully passing his legacy, replicating his own essence through generations and generations of people. It's as though Trotskyism is literally a bastard of Trotsky's own personality.

Making comparisons with the schism of the Second International is equally ridiculous. Kautsky among other traitors were driving an already built worker's movement and steering already-existing class consciousness in the form of national chauvinism because as leaders they were gutless, dishonest and untrue to the cause of the working people (The power of the war - the ideological power of the drums of war was stronger than the drums of class struggle for them, personally).

During the second world war, however, the worker's movement (or what was left of it) was irrevocably tied to the political interests and being of the Soviet state. The Soviet Union was by no meaningful criteria a capitalist country and it was therefore incapable of being an "Imperialist country", no matter how disastrous or tragic the road it was going down was. If people would like to disagree here (wrongfully, of course), they would have to contest then that there was no worker's movement from the period leading up to the second world war as a worker's movement cannot be tied to the interests of an "Imperialist state" and would then simply be "imperialist proxies". So, in the absence of a real worker's movement - simply "opposing both sides" is impossible. In his own way, Linksradikal is right - to claim that fighting Fascism is necessary means that one believes in the impotence or ineffectiveness of the class struggle. But the class struggle was ineffective and impotent, and if it wasn't - it took the form of taking the side of the allies because again, the proletarian movement in character was tied to the interests of the Soviet state. One cannot go around pretending to be a guardian of Communist purity during this time when the social context for their alleged "Communism" doesn't even exist. If we had the choice - of course we should have fought for the class struggle - but the sad fact is that the failure of the Soviet Union and the disastrous road it was going on had dragged the whole of the international worker's movement - the failure of Soviet Communism necessarily entailed the defeat of global Communism, too. The working class, as it did during the collapse, had taken quite the blow. Again, reality does not form as a result of what we want, or our will - the sad fact is that the political, and social context that led to the second world war made replicating the Zimmerwald position impossible.

When the Zimmerwald Left, as minorities opposed the first world war - despite being minorities they derived from a real social context - they represented a real faction of the worker's movement. They saw that the years characterized by the strengthening of the worker's movement were halted by the First World war - they uncompromisingly would not betray the cause of Communism in favor of the false war. But what "cause" did the Communist parties betray by taking the side of the allies? If they were, as Zim has shown us, given orders from Moscow, what does that demonstrate as far as the character of these parties even before the war? Something was wrong. The social democracy laid the foundations of the Zimmerwald Left as a faction - but the Communism of the late 1930's did not.

The fact of the matter is that it was not the war itself that represented the barbarism of capitalism - but the emergence of Fascist states. Fascism, ideologically, as a replacement for Liberalism was the real barbarism, the real degeneration of bourgeois politics. Again, barbarism is not simply defined as massive bloodshed or loss of human life - it is much more complicated. The second world war was not only an imperialist war (and not completely one either, being that the Soviet Union was not imperialist) - it was a war against the degeneration of bourgeois politics and ideology - their means of rule. And this is not to be underestimated - yes Fascist countries had the same social relations - but to say that this is all that counts, when the battle against feudalism was over, is vulgar.

VivalaCuarta

16th October 2014, 19:23

"The fact of the matter is that" Rafiq is the ultimate synthesis of blatherism and populism.

VivalaCuarta

16th October 2014, 20:30

No true political thinker accepts self-designation as the standard in defining a political trend. No true Internet dilettante is capable of appreciating this.

There is a debate over the definition of communism. The definition itself cannot be above politics. It is in contention. Yes, "communists" and "socialists" have betrayed the working class over and over again. But some of us would say that since they have acted to prop up the bloody rule of the bourgeoisie rather than to smash it, they are not actually communists, whatever they, or Wikipedia, or somebody on the Internet may call them. Deal with it.

As I stated before, Communists are for the defeat of "our own" imperialist government in its wars. Pledges of pacifist bona fides don't impress us much, since this thread itself shows that even the most faithful lapdogs of imperialism can swear their "opposition" to war.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 20:44

The entire debate started over you defending the statement that this was a revolutionary conflict with linguism which included that there was no difference between bourgeois states.

I invite users to carefully scrutinize posts to discover I've never stated either thing. There are many differences between bourgeois states. However, no difference justifies giving one of them political support, or "not opposing" its imperialist interventions. In that respect, differences exist -- and are irrelevant to how a revolutionary should act in relation to those different states. Also I have no idea what a "conflict with linguism" is. But sure, I supposedly said that, too. I think you are confusing me with a different user, which is understandable since your approach to conversation is to bundle yourself in unprincipled thank-parties with whomever happens to be criticizing your critics in any given thread, while imagining that your critics similarly form some kind of a secret bloc together whose posts can be interchanged with one another. If Invader Zim's posts don't have much to do with leftism, yours don't have much to do with reality.

The rest of your post is an attempt to draw out side-issues that are easily settled by consulting previous discussion, all in an effort to try to bury your obvious and craven pro-imperialist reformism beneath pages and pages of rambling text blocks.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

16th October 2014, 20:46

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 20:47

Then all I can say is that it's pretty sad that you would attack Leon, one of the best of the Fourth International, and all he stood for, while applauding policies that led to Trotskyist and Left Communist groups everywhere being wiped out by the "good" imperialists.

O cry me a river. Where am I attacking your precious Abram?

What I am however saying that, undeminishing the heroism, the fourth international during the war was a shambles. Even more so after the war. Plus that large parts of the fourth international alligned parties in Belgium received support out of the UK.

VivalaCuarta

16th October 2014, 21:00

Unless you're planting pipebombs at airbases shut the fuck up already. There's no real world impact between your position and even those of the idiots who voted yes in this thread. In fact just shut the fuck up period

@viva

Unless you're an incredibly incompetent provocateur I would remind you that Communists seek to mobilize the power of the working class against imperialism, we don't advocate individual terrorism. We call for workers strikes against the war and "hot cargo"-ing of war supplies. We won't give up and we won't shut up.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

16th October 2014, 21:05

Unless you're an incredibly incompetent provocateur I would remind you that Communists seek to mobilize the power of the working class against imperialism, we don't advocate individual terrorism. We call for workers strikes against the war and "hot cargo"-ing of war supplies. We won't give up and we won't shut up.

Which makes it cool to be a loudmouth on the internet flexing in front of other loudmouths, yeah I get it. It's stale, shut the fuck up.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 21:13

I invite users to carefully scrutinize posts to discover I've never stated either thing. There are many differences between bourgeois states. However, no difference justifies giving one of them political support, or "not opposing" its imperialist interventions. In that respect, differences exist -- and are irrelevant to how a revolutionary should act in relation to those different states. Also I have no idea what a "conflict with linguism" is. But sure, I supposedly said that, too.

The rest of your post is an attempt to draw out side-issues that are easily settled by consulting previous discussion, all in an effort to try to bury your obvious and craven pro-imperialist reformism beneath pages and pages of rambling text blocks.

O they don't need to bother.

This post really says it all and is illustrative of your distortions, lies, hypocracy and idiocy.

Fair enough. But this is not a revolutionary war or conflict. It is a conflict between competing bourgeois factions.
There's a word for it when one of the parties in the conflict is a foreign force belonging to a state representing the world's largest and most powerful business firms. Can you guess what it is?

That...exactly there...is YOU litterally qualifying one bourgeois state over another.

That...rights there...is YOU attacking the statement that this is not a revolutionary conflict.

I would also like to direct your attention to these passages from my opening posts in this thread and our debate:

What we have here is several bourgeois factions fighting for domination. Within the constellation of reactionary forces vying for power all trying to extend their powerbase well beyong their own region and impose their religious, political and economic domination on others....subjectively selecting one for specific focus creates an out of context analysis.

Mindlessly focussing on Western imperialism kind of creates the dichotomy that there therefore is a worse and less worse kind of imperialism.

In doing so and your subtile defense of ISIS and casting doubt on ISIS-self-admitted policy as Western propaganda you subjectively create the impression that some imperialism is less bad than others.

The bombings are not imperialism. The whole situation however is. Singling out one fraction of it based on the fact that it is committed by the US is faulty analysis and in essence it is bait and obfuscates the bigger picture: warring bourgeois factions.

So basically that is choosing between factions based on power between the factions.

So there we have it. So far..,.the only person actually qualifying one bourgeois faction over another is you.

Which is funny...because that act of qualifying of one faction over another is actually what you use as an argument against members here and call unrevolutionary.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 21:25

O they don't need to bother.

This post really says it all and is illustrative of your distortions, lies, hypocracy and idiocy.

You are funny. The one quote you provide is of my comment noting that imperialism is defined by military conquest by a state dominated by monopoly caretels. Apparently you think that my implicit claim that the US is an imperialist power and that ISIS is not logically must mean that I support ISIS.

The rest of the quotes are of you asking me questions about where I would rather live. I guess that's evidence of things I said? Noticeably absent are any quotes where I indicated anything about a "revolutionary war with linguism" or a belief that there are no differences between bourgeois states. There are no class differences, but there are many other differences besides. One of them is that not all bourgeois formations are imperialist. It's also funny that in your quest to prove I said that there are no differences between bourgeois states or governing entities, you quote a line where I point out a difference. oops.

Since you've done such a fantastic job at embarrassing yourself throughout this thread, and since I try to keep things civil, I'll refrain from calling you a liar. I think you take revleft so personally that you treat conversations like a battle with "sides" where winning at all costs is all that matters. Because of that, you don't read carefully and attribute to people ideas and statements they've never said but make some kind of weird sense in your own head.

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 21:26

As I stated before, Communists are for the defeat of "our own" imperialist government in its wars. Pledges of pacifist bona fides don't impress us much, since this thread itself shows that even the most faithful lapdogs of imperialism can swear their "opposition" to war.

Except the US is not my bourgeois government.

Now I have to hope for the defeat of ISIS, the US, Kurds, Syrian government...can't all actually lose.

But no real matter though...because at least one is bound to lose. So I am winning either way. Regardless of the effects on the lives of the workers actually living in the reality.

I can't help but notice how rrradical revolutionaries, especially those of the 4th Inter, always sound exactly like Social Darwinists.

Rafiq

16th October 2014, 21:42

"The fact of the matter is that" Rafiq is the ultimate synthesis of blatherism and populism.

Crawl back into your hole, I don't care about what the trot drones think of me. Fact is, you present no argument. You address nothing I have said. So fuck off.

Rafiq

16th October 2014, 21:47

No true political thinker accepts self-designation as the standard in defining a political trend.

But that's EXACTLY what Trotskyists have always done historically! The standard in defining the political trend of communism to trotskyists was precisely their own self designation of adhering to the "true ways" of Leninism (hence their infinite splits and factions - what could this adherence be but vague and open for interpretation without a real social base to back the drivel up?)! They had NO social basis, or context, they were nothing short of the "intellectuals" you prattle on about not being worth shit! This is beyond hilarious.

Reforge the 4th international? When was the 4th international ever worth a dog's shit?

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 21:49

You are funny. The one quote you provide is of my comment noting that imperialism is defined by military conquest by a state dominated by monopoly caretels. Apparently you think that my claim that the US is an imperialist power and that ISIS is not logically must mean that I support ISIS.

The rest of the quotes are of you asking me questions about where I would rather live. I guess that's evidence of things I said? Noticeably absent are any quotes where I indicated anything about a "revolutionary war with linguism" or a belief that there are no differences between bourgeois states. There are no class differences, but there are many other differences besides.

Since you've done such a fantastic job at embarrassing yourself throughout this thread, and since I try to keep things civil, I'll refrain from calling you a liar. I think you take revleft so personally that you treat conversations like a battle with "sides" where winning at all costs is all that matters. Because of that, you don't read carefully and attribute to people ideas and statements they've never said but make some kind of weird sense in your own head.

Dude....we are long past the phase of being civil. Somebody who is acting like such a doorknob as you is just a serious form of entertainment on slow nights for me. And personally I think you are so full of shit I don't actually care what you call me.

Because for all your rrrrevolutionary posturing and dick measuring...what you have failed to notice, because you have your head so far up your own ass, that you were actually attacking the person who has argued from the start that there is no qualitative difference between imperialist factions, who stated all sides need to be equally focussed on and that singling out one side over the other is actually...bad politics and leads to bad analysis.

I also attack your non existing powers of analysis which never get past the point of revolutionary platitudes. Because they are simply bad politics that look nice on paper but mean fuck all in actual reality to the people living that reality and ignore large parts of what is actually happening.

I also contest your notion that the US bombings are an embodyment of imperialism rather than an act of force within a broader context of imperialism.

And I contest your notion that the US is the only imperialist player currently on the field in the conflict.

I also contest your notion that
I can tell a person not to interfere in a fight without taking a side in that fight. is not taking sides in that fight.

Sharia Lawn

16th October 2014, 21:53

Cosmonaut

16th October 2014, 21:59

revleft com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1488&pictureid=11833
Why?

PhoenixAsh

16th October 2014, 22:35

It is also instructive that PhoenixAsh, a person charged with moderating and setting the tone for discussions by his behavior, has been excessively flaming multiple users throughout the entire thread. This behavior is not only against the rules, but would be embarrassing to anybody who took his politics seriously enough to defend them soberly.

Here, comrades, is a case study in how to escalate, how to verbally abuse users, how to get so caught up emotionally that you are no longer able to process rationally what is going on in a discussion, and in general how to fail at properly moderating an online community.

And I really mean all those things from the bottom of my heart...and they are still very polite too. The things I would call you in Dutch would probably make you blush.

You will notice that most of these posts are actually posts calling you out on your behaviour...most of these posts I substantiated with quotes of you actually doing what I said you were doing. All of what I said is completely true. Non of it therefore (admittedly except for your last one) actually constitutes anything resembling flaming....except of course posts like this one actually proof that too.

And here is why.

This entire debate you have attacked me over a straw man you created, been strawmanning, continued to straw man. lied, deceived, slandered and weaseld your way through it. You have falsely accused me and other members here of supporting imperialism, called several members unrevolutionary for qualifying imperialism...while qualifying imperialism yourself...and generally being a complete and utter hypocrite...not least of all because of your ad hominem riddled posts.

Now the absolute best thing for you is to do exactly what you said you would do several posts ago:

I invite you to have the last word,

Lastly...realize the truth in this statement:

Any additional posts directed at you would be a waste of time.

Rottenfruit

17th October 2014, 01:05

Do you think the intervention should be extended to target the Shia militias as well?
if they start to engage in genocide yes like what isis was/is doing to the yetzidi and guess what bombing mount sinjar saved thousands of lives

Chomskyan

17th October 2014, 01:24

No. Assad is considered to be the legitimate Syrian government by it's people. Outside agitators fomented the civil war, and the US has used this conflict in order to justify it's continued imperialism. That being said, if there is any pro-war decision by the US in the last 100 years that I could support, it'd be intervention against ISIS.

Illegalitarian

17th October 2014, 03:20

ISIS arent imperialist

and neither was Stalin's USSR

The thread that keeps on giving.

Rafiq

17th October 2014, 04:47

ISIS arent imperialist

and neither was Stalin's USSR

The thread that keeps on giving.

So in your mind, was the Mongol or Roman empire imperialist?

Illegalitarian

17th October 2014, 04:50

Let's skip up to the part why you believe they were not.

Rafiq

17th October 2014, 05:38

Let's skip up to the part why you believe they were not.

Well that's the thing, they weren't. The usage of the term imperialism originates in a detailed and comprehensive understanding of a distinct period in capitalism around the first world war by Marxists. Imperialism is not distinctly characterized by conquering lands or being a big asshole bullying everyone around.

PhoenixAsh

17th October 2014, 10:30

Imperialism in the Marxist/Leninist sense is a specific stage within capitalism where the the economy moves (or develops) towards finance and away from manufacturing and to increasing monopolization. Here is a nice article to read which might give some insight: https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1955/08/imp-crit.html

Imperialism in any other sense is the domination or attempt at domination (creating situation of dependence), by any kind of force, of another region, country, people either economically, politically, strategically, for religious, ethnic and cultural reasons or a combination of some or all of these. Here is an overview of several theories on imperialism: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/imperial.htm

Tim Cornelis

17th October 2014, 13:44

No. Assad is considered to be the legitimate Syrian government by it's people. Outside agitators fomented the civil war, and the US has used this conflict in order to justify it's continued imperialism.

I'm disappointed that a Chomskyite, for all their flaws, would parrot this Assad regime narrative, and generally Bonapartist talking points. The notion that the civil war was fomented by 'foreign agitators' (the default first go-to conspiracy by any regime seeking to delegitimise opposition) relies in implausible assumptions on how people act and are moved into action. That Assad is considered legitimate by its (not it's) people is irrelevant. We do not acknowledge him as legitimate, so why accept it when others do? Moreover, where is this based on?

Sharia Lawn

17th October 2014, 16:38

So no. I do NOT support the bombings. BUT currently NO faction fighting in that region is 1). NON imperialist 2). Having the best interest of the working class in mind 3). anything that actually improves the lives of people. 4). Actually representing anything that is in any way shape or form serving anything but the bourgeois

As far as I am concerned this whole shitfest IS imperialism in progress for all angles.

I also contest your notion that "I can tell a person not to interfere in a fight without taking a side in that fight" is not taking sides in that fight.

According to PhoenixAsh's first quote, every party involved in the conflict, including the rivaling militias and the US, are engaged in imperialism. He also, according to the second quote, thinks that it is not possible to oppose US intervention without taking a side in the already existing conflict between the Shia militia groups and ISIS.

It doesn't take amazing powers of deduction to see that PhoenixAsh has constructed a framework in which a person cannot be anti-imperialist. If a person opposes US imperialism, he is unintentionally supporting the imperialism of ISIS or a Shia militia group. Conversely, if a person wants to oppose the "imperialism" of ISIS, he cannot oppose the American intervention. To do so, after all, would be to side with ISIS.

It follows from this framework that we have to choose an imperialism not to oppose: either we don't oppose ISIS imperialism or we don't oppose American imperialism. Either way, we can't be anti-imperialists.

Mind you, that is PhoenixAsh's own framework, not mine. According to his own statements, he is not and cannot be an anti-imperialist in this conflict. And I don't think it's controversial for me to point out that his insistence on comparing the EU to ISIS is a tacit way of expressing a preference that the US/EU and its military forces succeed in their imperialist intervention. Whether he voted in support of it or not in the poll is only noteworthy as a test of his self-understanding and confidence in his own convictions. It doesn't alter the substance of the positions he has expressed consistently throughout the thread.

Since I think it is possible to oppose all sides, just as it is possible to physically restrain a best friend in your proximity from jumping into a melee down the road at the same time that you instruct other bystanders to break up that melee, I must emphasize that it is possible to be consisently anti-imperialist. Not only that, I would suggest that the only principled position a revolutionary leftist should take is one of consistent anti-imperialism.

hashem

17th October 2014, 17:49

DOOM

17th October 2014, 18:00

I'm disappointed that a Chomskyite, for all their flaws, would parrot this Assad regime narrative, and generally Bonapartist talking points. The notion that the civil war was fomented by 'foreign agitators' (the default first go-to conspiracy by any regime seeking to delegitimise opposition) relies in implausible assumptions on how people act and are moved into action. That Assad is considered legitimate by its (not it's) people is irrelevant. We do not acknowledge him as legitimate, so why accept it when others do? Moreover, where is this based on?

Why should that disappoint you? Do I have to remind you that Chomsky was/is known to defend great anti-imperialist warriors like Milosevic and even Pol fucking Pot?

Geiseric

17th October 2014, 18:30

No to any US intervention is still the only sane stance to take. Anything else will not mobilize the masses.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

17th October 2014, 18:56

So to sum up:

(1) in one of my first posts, I claimed that many members of this site have a problematic attitude to the US intervention and, while some of them do not support the bombing (in public at least), they are not at all averse to calls for arming this or that sectarian militia and generally playing lesser-evil politics; I think this has been demonstrated in the last few pages beyond reasonable doubt, with some of the arguments being outright concern-trolling;

(2) we still haven't been told how ISIS, an entity entirely lacking in financial oligarchies, imperialist cartels and so on, is "imperialist";

(3) the slander that links the Belgian section of the 4th International to the imperialist government in the UK has not been substantiated;

(4) what the flying fuck am I reading anymore? If people think politics is merely a matter of picking out the "less bad" bourgeois side and sticking with it, why talk about socialism? Why not admit how things are to yourself and vote for Obama or hope the DSA will finally pressure Obama into being a good social-democrat so the bourgeois state can be reformed?

I mean good grief.

Rafiq

17th October 2014, 19:09

the way which this question is presented is wrong. YES or NO answer wouldnt resolve anything and its pointless. does USA and its allies or anyone else care about our answers? No. the question is: USA and its allies are bombing Syria and Iraq. how are we going to act about it? this is the question which is worth answering.

This is precisely the attitude Communists need today. Going out on the street and demonstrating against the bombings can only ever provide comic relief - it's ridiculous. We must fume our opposition with the campaigns through theory. We must concern ourselves with the after-effects of the bombing and the political, ideological implications of it. We can only oppose the bombings in a meaningful way by making known the hypocrisy of the American state in its collaboration with the reactionary monarchies of the Near East who gave birth to the political context which made the IS possible. The media has done everyone a service by covering the atrocities of the illegitimate Islamic state - now let us demand covering of the atrocities of the legitimate Islamic states, Saudi Arabia and the slave Kingdoms of global capital. In theory - it is high time we establish a detailed and comprehensive account of the rise of Islamism as well as it's relationship to the global capitalist totality.

Again, if American intervention was about forcing our liberal democracies upon the Near east - who cares? The point is that the backwardness and the dis-allowance of the growth of Near Eastern bourgeois civic values and liberal democracy is necessary for the existence of our liberal democracy. Ultimately, the point is not that liberal democracy is "bad" by merit of being different ideologically - the point is that it's a sham built on foundations which contain the silent potential of its replacement with barbarism to begin with! European neofascism, Islamism and the militia movement were inristic to our political 'democratic' order from day one - they were the insurance policy of capital.

The Middle East is not an oasis of purity being bombarded by foreign capital - the point is that the chaos of the Middle East represents a fundamental paradox in the global capitalist totality - a deadlock. It represents the hypocrisy, the falseness and the self contradictory nature of our global order.

Rafiq

17th October 2014, 19:15

(3) the slander that links the Belgian section of the 4th International to the imperialist government in the UK has not been substantiated;

It's so cute how you say that as though this "4th international" is a real thing, i.e. that it's something besides an intellectual club at best or realistically political LARP.

Funnily enough, you've managed to take the most ridiculous positions with regard to the bombings and put them in the service of yet again another one of your ass coverings. Apparently, those of us who criticize 870's lazy, infantile position are now lumped together with those that regard ISIS as imperialist. This is the primary tactic of 870 and it has been since day one: Everyone who disagrees with him are identified as one. Conveniently, this allows him to evade the more pressing and signfiicant points because now, destroying the notion that ISIS is imperialist also destroys the notion that there is overwhelming evidence that ISIS engages in mass sexual slavery on an official level.

Rafiq

17th October 2014, 19:19

Imperialism in any other sense is the domination or attempt at domination (creating situation of dependence), by any kind of force, of another region, country, people either economically, politically, strategically, for religious, ethnic and cultural reasons or a combination of some or all of these. Here is an overview of several theories on imperialism: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/imperial.htm

This notion of Imperialism is meaningless to any Marxist and as a term is absolutely worthless. Imperialism as described is as old as civilization itself, it provides absolutely no distinct or useful means to understand our very distinct social epoch. What it does sound like, is yet again another attempt to make circumstances and conditions unique solely to our social epoch a matter of human nature or just "things humans have done for a long time" - when concerning ourselves with the immediate problems of capitalism, we now have to concern ourselves with the problems of the Roman Empire. This is nothing short of obfuscation.

PhoenixAsh

17th October 2014, 19:56

I am not sure where you are reading that I am saying that the Marxist notion of imperialism is useless. So....I really don't understand your post.

Edit
O wait. Sorry that is not what you are saying. Will reply when I am no lover driving.

PhoenixAsh

17th October 2014, 21:40

According to PhoenixAsh's first quote, every party involved in the conflict, including the rivaling militias and the US, are engaged in imperialism. He also, according to the second quote, thinks that it is not possible to oppose US intervention without taking a side in the already existing conflict between the Shia militia groups and ISIS.

It doesn't take amazing powers of deduction to see that PhoenixAsh has constructed a framework in which a person cannot be anti-imperialist. If a person opposes US imperialism, he is unintentionally supporting the imperialism of ISIS or a Shia militia group. Conversely, if a person wants to oppose the "imperialism" of ISIS, he cannot oppose the American intervention. To do so, after all, would be to side with ISIS.

It follows from this framework that we have to choose an imperialism not to oppose: either we don't oppose ISIS imperialism or we don't oppose American imperialism. Either way, we can't be anti-imperialists.

Mind you, that is PhoenixAsh's own framework, not mine. According to his own statements, he is not and cannot be an anti-imperialist in this conflict. And I don't think it's controversial for me to point out that his insistence on comparing the EU to ISIS is a tacit way of expressing a preference that the US/EU and its military forces succeed in their imperialist intervention. Whether he voted in support of it or not in the poll is only noteworthy as a test of his self-understanding and confidence in his own convictions. It doesn't alter the substance of the positions he has expressed consistently throughout the thread.

Since I think it is possible to oppose all sides, just as it is possible to physically restrain a best friend in your proximity from jumping into a melee down the road at the same time that you instruct other bystanders to break up that melee, I must emphasize that it is possible to be consisently anti-imperialist. Not only that, I would suggest that the only principled position a revolutionary leftist should take is one of consistent anti-imperialism.

O god you are still talking....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Deep sigh.

Lets start here:

In order to white wash your folly...you are talking about "instructing others to restrain" the fight. Which is NOT not interfering....you fucking assclown. OMG.

Do you even THINK before writing the shit that comes out of your fingers?

1). YOU are NOT opposing all sides. YOU are attaching waaaay too much value to one single faction.

2). YOU are mindlessly focussing on one single act of one single faction and taking it out of context, incorrectly labelling it and thereby creating an increadibly stupid and completely wrong analysis

3). YOU are too fucking stupid to understand whatever it is people say to you...and this is evident in the fact that, regardless of the fact that you already concluded that continuing this debate with me is pointless, are still talking to me.

4). Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I think you are a fake. You have no idea what you are talking about. You rehash things you read in a book, heard people talking about but have no clue how to actually apply in any realistic sense (kind of like Jason Unruhe). I also think you are a closet sexist and suffer from a white mans burden kind of racism. YOu have no comprehension of what the actual argument we have is and you are a fucking lying hypocrite because you actually don't believe in what you are saying and contradict yourself repeatedly.

5). YOUR statement that when there is a fight and you urge others not to take sides and think that is not taking sides is fucking incredibly insane. It is the classic playground bully excuse and the pacifists folly. Sorry...but if you are under the impression that actively not taking sides is not taking sides then you are insane. It is also the aloof cowards approach to difficult issues which have real implications for people who are not of your ethnicity. Your position is in fact hugely problematic because you take the easy approach in the safe knowledge that it is other people suffering the consequences of your words you spew simply to remain your "rrrrevolutionary purity"

6). I am NOT having a debate about you on the merit of imperialism I am having a debate here about YOU and the way YOU act and the consequences of applying YOUR logic.

7). You have lied and weaseled your way through this debate as has been shown by multiple quotes. You have slandered members here on exactly the opposite of what they actually argue and continue to straw man and lie.

God really. Did your parents drop you on your head when you were little? Because seriously...you can't be this fucking dense without some kind of accident.

Get some help for your pathological need to lie. Seriously. Get help.

Illegalitarian

17th October 2014, 22:01

PhoenixAsh

17th October 2014, 22:22

Those definitions aren't mutually exclusive, it's just that the former expands the definition to the economic instead of simple military force.

Well obviously the one can include the other but the Marxist definition is purely an economical one which presupposes capitalism as the basis of imperialism. The other one doesn't.

This notion of Imperialism is meaningless to any Marxist and as a term is absolutely worthless. Imperialism as described is as old as civilization itself, it provides absolutely no distinct or useful means to understand our very distinct social epoch. What it does sound like, is yet again another attempt to make circumstances and conditions unique solely to our social epoch a matter of human nature or just "things humans have done for a long time" - when concerning ourselves with the immediate problems of capitalism, we now have to concern ourselves with the problems of the Roman Empire. This is nothing short of obfuscation.

Well that is certainly true from a Marxist perspective. Yet personally I don't think that imperialism is distinct to our epoch nor confined to the presupposition of capitalism and therefore not a factor of human class behaviour, regardless of the mode of production, itself.

Illegalitarian

17th October 2014, 22:38

Well obviously the one can include the other but the Marxist definition is purely an economical one which presupposes capitalism as the basis of imperialism. The other one doesn't.

Well that is certainly true from a Marxist perspective. Yet personally I don't think that imperialism is distinct to our epoch nor confined to the presupposition of capitalism and therefore not a factor of human class behaviour, regardless of the mode of production, itself.

I don't see a thing here I disagree with.

I guess that's one of my issues with marxism and its often rigid definitions, which lead to all sort of philosophical vulgarities. I agree that imperialism doesn't have to come in the form of tanks and bombs, it can and most often is economic (I think another word for this is "neo-colonialism"), but I have a very hard time accepting the statement that the Soviet Union or ISIS are not imperialist due to some hard adherence to Marxist doctrine that I'm pretty sure Marx himself would frown at.

PhoenixAsh

17th October 2014, 22:44

Well yes. I agree there.

There is another matter.

ISIS is currently a monopolization of the economical system with its own financial infrastructure and is participating in the international markets as a trader and profiteer of the exploits of the labour of wage workers and imposition of exploitative monetary and manufactured goods taxation inside conquered regions. Its religious posturing aside. ISIS is pretty much a capitalist organization as well as both an imperialist force and imperialist tool.

Sharia Lawn

17th October 2014, 22:50

Words

If your position on imperialism hangs on the argument that a person instructing others to end a fight on your behalf is not an act of opposition to that fight, you probably need to reconsider your position.

PhoenixAsh

17th October 2014, 22:56

And to clarify that. I think ISIS is exactly what the US/EU wants to happen and this situation is in fact the logical and most obviously premeditated outcome of attempt to destabilize and weaken the region which alligns with the intersts of factions within the US en EU bourgeois.

I think the continued threat ISIS poses is exactly the interests of these bourgeois factions and its intent is to draw it out as long as possible before it needs to defeat ISIS in order to regain more direct controll or install a faction which is favorable to them and their interests.

As I said previously. If this was in opposition to interests of the western bourgeois there would be an actual invasion. As it stands the bombings are intentionally ineffective. They boost the military industrial complex, they placate electoral sentiments and they keep this conflict going.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

17th October 2014, 23:02

2). YOU are mindlessly focussing on one single act of one single faction and taking it out of context, incorrectly labelling it and thereby creating an increadibly stupid and completely wrong analysis

[...]

4). Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I think you are a fake. You have no idea what you are talking about. You rehash things you read in a book, heard people talking about but have no clue how to actually apply in any realistic sense (kind of like Jason Unruhe). I also think you are a closet sexist and suffer from a white mans burden kind of racism. YOu have no comprehension of what the actual argument we have is and you are a fucking lying hypocrite because you actually don't believe in what you are saying and contradict yourself repeatedly.

5). YOUR statement that when there is a fight and you urge others not to take sides and think that is not taking sides is fucking incredibly insane. It is the classic playground bully excuse and the pacifists folly. Sorry...but if you are under the impression that actively not taking sides is not taking sides then you are insane. It is also the aloof cowards approach to difficult issues which have real implications for people who are not of your ethnicity. Your position is in fact hugely problematic because you take the easy approach in the safe knowledge that it is other people suffering the consequences of your words you spew simply to remain your "rrrrevolutionary purity"

How anyone can see this as anything but shamefaced support for imperialism is beyond me. Izvestia, according to PhoenixAsh is "incorrectly labeling" (!) the bombing as an act of imperialism (because, apparently, everyone in the civil war is imperialist, which is one of those statements that falls apart as soon as you stop to think about it - we're all still waiting to hear how ISIS is imperialist, of course), they're sexist because they're criticising the US and the PKK (who are of course valiant saviours of the womanfolk), they're ethnic chauvinists as well (unlike Dutch people who actively dismiss non-Kurdish groups targeted by the PKK), but most importantly they are acting like the people who tacitly support a schoolyard bully ("but what about poor little Belgium?", as a WWI-era social-chauvinist might say).

This is pretty much a matter of principle. This was understood during WWI - no matter how bloody the German army in Belgium is, no matter how many stories about crucified soldiers the Entente comes up with, the socialist standpoint is always - down with the imperialist war! That is all. That is all there is to it and all that is necessary to take a stand. Trying to make simple matters complex is always the hallmark of patriots and social-chauvinists.