Anti-Imperialism

[MKS]

Socialism/Communism all good ideals that would, in my opinion create true equality in our world. However, one goal of the "new" socialist/communist shold be anti-imperialism, that is destorying the capitalistic powers that oppress the weaker nations.

I may be wrong but this should be the first goal in creating a socialistic/communist society. Destruction of the any government which forecfuly imposes its principles, both idealogic and economic upon the world, through war, embargo and other forms of direct coersion. Destrcution of the western ideal that might and white make right.

todays world is far different from that of Marx, and therofre we must be aware of the new threats on freedom on self determination, and on soveriegnty. Socialism/Communism cannot succeed until the imperial powers of this world are toppled.

[Anti-establishment]

I agree fully, living under British rule is my main concern, i want to see them leave more than anything. Socialism cannot survive if it is implemented by a country that occupies your own, that would lead to bitterness to socialism as well as to the country implementing it.

[Colombia]

I'm sorry but this idea is just too radical in my opinion. In the beginning stages when socialist nations begin to arise, the best option at the moment would be survival. Any declaration of war against capitalism would be suicide and they would fail. My idea is that the young socialist nation practice isolationism and have allies only to the left. Therefore they can grow, and become more powerful. Then when they are strong perhaps what you have said may be done.

[MKS]

Any declaration of war against capitalism would be suicide and they would fail.

Any socialist/communist revolution is a war against capitalism.

In todyas world imperialism has reached a zenith, shockingly powerful and oppressive, socialists/communists any revolutionary must identify this fact and make the realization that imperialism as a vestige of capitalism must be destoryed first. This applies directly to socialist living within the western powers (the imperialist powers) we must seek to destory the powers that oppress. Che himself was a crusader against imperialism and made several speeches about the cruel oppression of the western world against the third world, but also against the Soviet Union for aiding the imperialists. (Che's speech in Algiers)


My idea is that the young socialist nation practice isolationism

Impossible, any socialist nation is a target for attack from the imperialists. example: Cuba.

Any nation that strays from the world view of the imperialists (i.e. USA) is under threat of attack, coerison, embargo etc. Example: Latin America

[Colombia]

Immediately going to war against capitalism would not work. Just look at the Cold War. In their efforts to stop capitalism, the USSR collapsed on themselves because sadly they could not compete because they still lived in a world loving capitalism. This without even declaring war, placing embargoes or what not! Going to war would only tarnish the communist name even more.

That is why I said for these nations to allie with other nations with similiar views so that the threat is reduced.

[MKS]

Immediately going to war against capitalism would not work. Just look at the Cold War. In their efforts to stop capitalism, the USSR collapsed on themselves because sadly they could not compete because they still lived in a world loving capitalism.

Going to war against Capitalism wold not work, but going to war against capitalist nations would. Not if to establish socialism than soley for the reason of toppeling the imperialist powers.

The Cuban revolution did not start as a socialist revolution, just as fight for freedom and a self determination not granted under the Batista puppet regime.

The Soviet Union is always a bad example of "communism" it was never communist or really socialist. State socialist maybe.

Going to war would only tarnish the communist name in the eyes of the oppressors and who really cares what they think.

Didnt Che promote direct confrontation with the imperialists, how else would anything get done?

[DoomedOne]

Capitalism is a form of economy that is counter productive, wasteful, harmful, and frankly a primitve form of economy. Out ecnomy does need to evolve, I agree on those points. War, however, is not an answer. The force the current capitalism supporting governments hold is far too powerful for any violent revolution to stand a chance. They simply hold too much power, and violence would only give them an excuse to test their power against the "no good leftists." You can't give them ane xcuse to use power, you have to fight this "war" in an element they don't rule in.

[MKS]

You can't give them ane xcuse to use power, you have to fight this "war" in an element they don't rule in.

What element dont they rule? Besides the imperialist/capitalist powers never needed am excuse to use thier power.

The war must be fought, it cannot come about peacfully.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:18 AM
Socialism/Communism all good ideals that would, in my opinion create true equality in our world. However, one goal of the "new" socialist/communist shold be anti-imperialism, that is destorying the capitalistic powers that oppress the weaker nations.

Um, did you say imperialism is destroying capitalist nations, or did you say yor goal would be to destroy capitalist nations?

[MKS]

Imperialism is a vestige of capitalist nations: Lenin worte a book entitiled Imperialism,the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Which is what rules the world today,imperialism must be destoryed, it shold be the first goal of any socialist living in the developed world (western world).

[DoomedOne]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:19 PM

You can't give them ane xcuse to use power, you have to fight this "war" in an element they don't rule in.

What element dont they rule? Besides the imperialist/capitalist powers never needed am excuse to use thier power.

The war must be fought, it cannot come about peacfully.
I reccomend the book "A Firce more Powerful" to see all the elements peaceful movements have. It't about gaining support, you can only answer violence with non-violence. Violent revolutions do nothing but replace one dictator with another. If you want to evolve our economic system, then evolve, don't destroy it. Shift the current economic and governing paradigms by inspiring support and educating people, ending the perception gap. If imperialsm truly does threaten this planet then a simple perception gap the capitalist supporters have must be overcome.

[Colombia]

Going to war against Capitalism wold not work, but going to war against capitalist nations would. Not if to establish socialism than soley for the reason of toppeling the imperialist powers.What is the difference?




The Cuban revolution did not start as a socialist revolution, just as fight for freedom and a self determination not granted under the Batista puppet regime. The Cuban revolution under Castro was however influenced by socialism. Seeing that Castro was a member of a radical left group before getting into trouble with Batista, and having Raul and Che alongside him, it seems to me a socialist revolution.




The Soviet Union is always a bad example of "communism" it was never communist or really socialist. State socialist maybe. While it may be a bad example, it is the best I can think of. Unless you have a better example?



Going to war would only tarnish the communist name in the eyes of the oppressors and who really cares what they think. And the oppresors have the power to show the public what it wants. If these workers in the capitalist nations see that they are in a war with a socialist one, they will begin to think socialism=bad.




Didnt Che promote direct confrontation with the imperialists, how else would anything get done?Yet he never officially declared war on the USA or any industrialized capitalist nation did he?

[MKS]

The Cuban revolution under Castro was however influenced by socialism. Seeing that Castro was a member of a radical left group before getting into trouble with Batista, and having Raul and Che alongside him, it seems to me a socialist revolution.

If im not mistaken Fidel was careful not to alienate the liberal anti-batista factions in cuba, factions that were ardentaly anti-communist, whether it was only a political move, the Cuban revolution as stated by Fidel himself did not begin as a socialist movement, only as a liberation movement.


QUOTE
Going to war against Capitalism wold not work, but going to war against capitalist nations would. Not if to establish socialism than soley for the reason of toppeling the imperialist powers.

What is the difference?

War against Capitalism the idealogy and principle is differnet from declaring war on specific imperialist/capitalist nations i.e USA, england etc.


While it may be a bad example, it is the best I can think of. Unless you have a better example?

How could something that is bad be a good example? Unfourtunatley all "communist" nations are bad examples of communism. Except for maybe Cuba, which is socialist, a good start.


Yet he never officially declared war on the USA or any industrialized capitalist nation did he?

Sure he did, by aiding gurellia movements in the Congo, and South America, of course he didnt attack any US installations of the mainland, but his actions disrupted the imperialists, why do you think the US had him killed?

Logistically a direct attack on the Imperialist nations would be worthless, however socialists/communists who live in the imperial nations have a unqiue oppurtunity to destory the beast from within. that shold be the first goal of Western Socialists.

[Colombia]

If im not mistaken Fidel was careful not to alienate the liberal anti-batista factions in cuba, factions that were ardentaly anti-communist, whether it was only a political move, the Cuban revolution as stated by Fidel himself did not begin as a socialist movement, only as a liberation movement.Of course. That is why I said the Cuban revolution under Castro was socialist in nature.

Just because he said it does not mean it is so. In my opinion it probably was just a political move.


War against Capitalism the idealogy and principle is differnet from declaring war on specific imperialist/capitalist nations i.e USA, england etc.Does anyone else agree with MKS on this because this is the same thing to me? I can't see how it is different seeing that these industrial nations are practincing capitalism.


How could something that is bad be a good example? Unfourtunatley all "communist" nations are bad examples of communism. Except for maybe Cuba, which is socialist, a good start.So I ask you again. Can you give me a better example?


Logistically a direct attack on the Imperialist nations would be worthless, however socialists/communists who live in the imperial nations have a unqiue oppurtunity to destory the beast from within. that shold be the first goal of Western Socialists. Agreed.

[MKS]

Just because he said it does not mean it is so. In my opinion it probably was just a political move

I agree, but can we ever really know what Fidel or the revolutionary army were thinking? I think there were elements within the revolutionary force that were not socialist/communist. By revolutionary force I mean the actual fighting force, the period of the revolution being the actual fight.



Does anyone else agree with MKS on this because this is the same thing to me? I can't see how it is different seeing that these industrial nations are practincing capitalism.

When someone declares war on Capitalism, it to me is a very broad meaning. Its like saying I declare war on Christianity, instead of saying I declare war on the Vatican, or the Church of England. While it is a war against Christianity, there is specific target, not just a broad concept. I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but alot of times I hear people saying, lets declare war on the capitalists/imperialists, saying that could mean almost every western nation. I would rather there be a specific target.


How could something that is bad be a good example? Unfourtunatley all "communist" nations are bad examples of communism. Except for maybe Cuba, which is socialist, a good start.

So I ask you again. Can you give me a better example?

there isnt a better example, there isnt any example of a true communist/socialist nation. Only bad examples of communism gone wrong. (Russia, China, Cambodia,N. Korea etc)



I reccomend the book "A Firce more Powerful" to see all the elements peaceful movements have. It't about gaining support, you can only answer violence with non-violence. Violent revolutions do nothing but replace one dictator with another. If you want to evolve our economic system, then evolve, don't destroy it. Shift the current economic and governing paradigms by inspiring support and educating people, ending the perception gap. If imperialsm truly does threaten this planet then a simple perception gap the capitalist supporters have must be overcome.
Quote from DoomedOne

I think you underestimate the power and violence of the imperialist nations, especially USA. A peacful revolution would not work, nor would an evolution, such peacful ways are too slow and allow for corruption by capitalist forces. The imperialists have shown through history they are willing to kill thousands (somtimes millions) to retain their power, why should we allow that? Why should we become victims? The imperialists can only be stopped through violence.

There are no historic examples of peacful revolutions, they always crumble to outside agitation as well as in fighting, India comes to mind, but if you think that was a peacful revolution youre mistaken. Thousands died at the hands of the British, and after "independence"was given, the riots and mob killings in the north of the nation killed even more. There was nothing peacful about it.

History does have many examples of successful violent revolutions.

[DoomedOne]

The ends don't justify the means. You understand here I live in a country of double-speak. Everyone favors freedom, democracy, and equality here, they simple don't understand what it means because the politicians use those words to further their own agenda. If the government were to resort to any violence whatsoever against a peaceful revolution, then it only fuels the fire. If people actually understood what Socialism really was, most people would agree with it, but we live in a world surounded by blind followers, and violence only closes their minds. You want to educate them on why imperialism must end, you have to show them respect, humility and empathy. The pen is mightier than the sword, after all.

[MKS]

You want to educate them on why imperialism must end, you have to show them respect, humility and empathy. The pen is mightier than the sword, after all.

I think you misunderstood, the violence isnt against the people it is for the people. Even if the people are educated as to why imperialism is bad it wouldnt matter the imperialists would supress any peacful revolution using very violent means. after the "education" there must be action, those that stand for the imperialists should be counted as enemies.



The pen is mightier than the sword, after all

Revolutions arent won by pens but by blood, and sacrafice. Even Thomas Paine would agree.

[DoomedOne]

Well I disagree, but I suppose we've hit deadlock. I just believe that with violence you are no better than those willing to use violence against you.

[MKS]

I just believe that with violence you are no better than those willing to use violence against you.


Dosent intent count for anything? If the revolutionaries intent in altruistic, than the ends will justify the means.

[DoomedOne]

No, intent does not count if you're willing to kill or torture. If you cross that line then you can no longer say your ends will be altruistic. You can't force anything on anybody, if you could then we'd all be capitalists. Instead, violent revolution enplaces military control over the country, and that is the end result regardless of the intent.

[MKS]

You can't force anything on anybody, if you could then we'd all be capitalists

There is no force of socialism on anyone, the violence is used to destory the imperialist powers, to defeat our enemies.


violent revolution enplaces military control over the country

Did that happen to the US after thier revolution? There is a time for violence, just like there is a time for peace. Violence is nessecary unfourtuantley, history has shown that.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:00 AM

You can't force anything on anybody, if you could then we'd all be capitalists

There is no force of socialism on anyone, the violence is used to destory the imperialist powers, to defeat our enemies.


And what after you defeat the imperialist powers? Your not just going to leave them alone and let them regroup are you? A country is going to try and impose their own viewpoints on that country. Just look at Iraq for example.

[MKS]

As stated before violence will only be used against our enemies. Hopefully once the revolution is successfull (the fighting part) the masses will realize the liberation, and therofre the only people who stand against the new order will be dealt with.

[DoomedOne]

But that's never happened. The only way that would happen is if every single opposer of the revolution were either dead or in jail. One of the first steps after a violent revolution is to further instate military control over the cpuntry to continue the fight against the insurgeants.

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you are, lef tor right, if you condone violence. How can you trust in your own judgement with that much power? Power corrupts, it's that simple. That's why certain lines can NEVER be crossed when attempted to shift power, because if you cross that line, you're never going back.

[MKS]

The popular socialist revolution wil only need violence to destroy the military-industrial complex of the capitalists/imperialists. After the leaders of the empire are vanquished and the masses are in power the need for strict and decisive violence will be severely lessened, hopefully abolished.

It seems that you are afraid of state communism or tyranny like that of the soviet union and other failed revolutions. While it is good to be weary of such things, we cannot shy from using war inorder to put the people in power.

The North American revolution of 1776 clearly showed that a war can be waged and therafter peace restored and a competent governmental sturctre can be established.

[DoomedOne]

Who was it that said that when being beaten by a stick people rarely care if it's called the People stick?

The idea that people will just "give up on violence" is unrealistic. It's exactly like how Bush thought once the war was one the Iraqis would stop fighting. Well guess what, 20 years from now we're going have terrorist revolts for this action. It only bred more terrorism, all war does, it always has, always. The only time I can think of when it doesn't was when the people were so oppressed that all of them stood up in stead of just enough to start one. The French revolution was an example, there were so many people that had to choose between a revolution, and death by famine or disease, there was no further insurgiency.

But, why do think Fidel Castro does not allow anybody to speak out against the government? He has to uphold a strict military control over his nation even though the revolution is over, because so many people disagree with him. It won't stop.

[MKS]

But, why do think Fidel Castro does not allow anybody to speak out against the government? He has to uphold a strict military control over his nation even though the revolution is over, because so many people disagree with him. It won't stop.

Castro and the cuban leadership does allow for dissent to be heard, however there is a line between dissent and treason. If to protect the people from Imperialism/capitlism and northern influence, the Cubans have to limit the freedom of press or speech than so be it. You have to remeber the alternative is oppression and tyranny from a foriegn ruler, a very real threat.



It's exactly like how Bush thought once the war was one the Iraqis would stop fighting. Well guess what, 20 years from now we're going have terrorist revolts for this action

Comparing an invasion and conquest of another land cannot be compared to popular revolution. The people and the vanguard lead the masses to liberation, unlike the Iraqi invasion which was a foreign nation conquereing and subduing another for financial gains/imperial gains.

Although the prospect of war and violence is a daunting one it is nessecary in order to completely destory the imperialistic powers that enslve humanity. However you are right, despotism and oppression can arise from such actions, but we cannot let those fears stop the advancement of the cause. We must have faith that cooler heads will prevail, that the people will act out of love for humanity and not out of greed.

Putting yourself on a moral highground is unfair to the people, they will suffer from any non violent revolutions. Would you have asked the slaves of the americas to use passive means to gain their freedom? Or the native americans to use passive means to stop the invading europeans?

[Colombia]

Castro and the cuban leadership does allow for dissent to be heard, however there is a line between dissent and treason. URL: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR250291997



If to protect the people from Imperialism/capitlism and northern influence, the Cubans have to limit the freedom of press or speech than so be it. You have to remeber the alternative is oppression and tyranny from a foriegn ruler, a very real threat.Than you become no better than the capitalist themselves. Just like how the pigs turned out to be in Animal Farm.

[MKS]

Peacful dissent should be restricted (not abolished) in socialist nations, or even nations only trying to maintian national soverignety. Cuba like most Latin American nations is under constant threat of Northern invasion and perversion. A perversion that would result in the same oppresion and tyranny that lived during batistas reign. Shouldnt such repression of speech and assembely be considered just if it stops the capitalists/imperialists from regaining power?

I think Che would agree, that sometimes we must sacrafice in order to protect the people.

Dont you think the Capitalists/imperialists do the same thing, and in many cases the casualties were far greater.

[Colombia]

http://www.holter.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/87a9c25630999d5fd334beb6cd0f6ce6/thumb/napoleon_th.gif

[MKS]

what is that?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A
Saying "I declare war on capitalism" is not enough - it is akin to a "war on terror" or a "war on yellow". In order to smash the productive relationships that create capitalism we must decimate capitalists, and the means by which they coerce and control.
A big goal? Certainly? But absolutely necessary - socialism in one country is dellusional, and an authentic world revolution is necessary to build a true, functioning socialism and ensure against capitalist restoration.
When workers throw off their local bourgeois, it's time to start shipping arms next door.

Ultraleft? Yes, and I'm not ashamed of it.



(Third-period, motherfuckers! ;) )


B
I believe the picture is of a pig dressed as a human - a reference to Animal Farm.

Colombia evidently doubts the ability of the working class to autonomously organize sufficient violence to smash the bourgeoisie without enshrining some sort of bureacratic central leadership. I disagree - I think the working class must violently supress counter-revolution - it's a question of self-defence!

Of course, this doesn't mean I agree with MKS either . . . I don't believe "socialist nations" (not even a concept I agree with in any proper sense) should have to "protect" the people from anything. People should be capable of organizing among themselves to deal with "problems".



C
Cuba is in an interesting situation. I certainly don't see it as an ideal model for building socialism, but its isolation (I think Colombia actually may have advocated this earlier in the thread, puzzlingly enough) has demanded its repressive measures. The history of American espionage against Cuba have give Fidel and pals more than enough justification for being a bit paranoid . . . and I really don't have that much sympathy for American spies, lackies, and saboteurs. Are all jailed "dissenters" imperialist agents? Probably not. Are most? Given historical precedent, probably.

[OleMarxco]

Bah, Cuba let's in capitalists nevertheless, it is inevitable. They lie right in the heart of "Capitalist-land", not far from the coast of Florida, WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT!? He -MAY- keep the direct capitalist armies from invading Cuba, yes, Castro does indeed, BUT...does he prevent people from selling stolen rolexes just down the aisle!? NOOOO! Shoot the cow! :castro:

[MKS]

I don't believe "socialist nations" (not even a concept I agree with in any proper sense) should have to "protect" the people from anything. People should be capable of organizing among themselves to deal with "problems".


The government being an extension of the people, a servant of thier will, acts for the protection of the peoples government. How are sugar cane farmers going to organize to fight American trained spies and CIA agents?

[Colombia]

The point that I'm trying to make with the picture is that if repression of the people must be done, you become no better than the capitalist pigs. No matter what the power of the pig is, it is still a pig.

I do support the Cuban government but we all must admit that Cuba has some serious problems that must be taken care of to ensure that true socialism takes place and it does not turn out any other way.

[MKS]

The point that I'm trying to make with the picture is that if repression of the people must be done, you become no better than the capitalist pigs. No matter what the power of the pig is, it is still a pig.

Im not talking about the repression of the people, but the repression of reactionaries and non-socialist factions that wish to destory the unity of a new socialist nation. Such repression and protection is vital in order for socialism, especially in todays world, to survive the perversion and reemergence of capitalism/imperialism.

[Colombia]

Agreed but to often any form of criticism against the state is beat down regardless of it's intentions. Hopefully this can be changed.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:26 PM

I don't believe "socialist nations" (not even a concept I agree with in any proper sense) should have to "protect" the people from anything. People should be capable of organizing among themselves to deal with "problems".


The government being an extension of the people, a servant of thier will, acts for the protection of the peoples government. How are sugar cane farmers going to organize to fight American trained spies and CIA agents?
Eeeg. No - states are, by their nature, alienable from the people at large and represent and centralized monopoly on violence, co-ordinated heirarchicaly.
If you can provide a historical example where a state has behaved as an "extension of the people" I'd love to hear it.
On the contrary, directly particpatory, democratic, non-state institutions (federations of autonomous democratic bodies, etc.) might be said to serve the people, but to confuse these institutions with "the state" is dangerous.
After the historical failures to create proletarian dictatorship via states, I think we have to develop a different model for working class control that does not provide capitalist roaders, reactionaries, etc. with such a simple means to seize control.

[MKS]

On the contrary, directly particpatory, democratic, non-state institutions (federations of autonomous democratic bodies, etc.) might be said to serve the people, but to confuse these institutions with "the state" is dangerous.
After the historical failures to create proletarian dictatorship via states, I think we have to develop a different model for working class control that does not provide capitalist roaders, reactionaries, etc. with such a simple means to seize control.

there is great differnence between theory and reality. Your theory on a "non-state" sounds great and is something i believe in, however it is not the reality. The reality is that people need to be governed, even during the transition from Capitalism to Socialism and finally to communism there must be a government in order to ensure the will and intrests of the people are protected.

In terms of anit-imperialism, the government has the duty to defend the soverignety of thier nation and people, as well as destroy any reactionary factions that still exist within. In a socialist nation the government acts as the servant of the people, where as in a capitaistc republic (USA) the government acts a control over the people. One could easily argue that such a socialist state does not exist, and the only close example I can find is Cuba. With the strong leadership of Castro and the Party Cuba has been created into a nation that serves the people ( free health care, education, very high literacy rate, racial tolerance, etc. etc) although the Cuban nation has its faults, poverty being one of the biggest, most of them stem from the interference of the Imperialist powers of North America ( embargos, terrorist attacks, sedition)

The people are not capable and should not be expected in a socialist nation to protect themselves from such dangers as imperialist perversion.