What is your view?

[James]

Alot of anti-war views voiced on this website do not have their main roots in a rejection of war per se, or the perception that it was based on dodgy evidence etc: but stems more from anti-imperialism. Sometimes this view itself, and sometimes once developed a bit futher, seems to suggest a strong belief in 'Realism' and 'state sovereignty'. Or put another way, a firm belief in the driving ideology behind the treaty of Westphalia. A system/ideology that i would describe as fundamentally non-interventionist.

So my question (or rather set of questions) is:
Do you believe in ultimate state-sovereignty/westphalian system?
If so, what is the extent of your belief in this system of politics. Do you think intervention is "allowed"? If so, what sort. If not, why not.

Please feel more than welcome to answer as indepth as you can. Alos, to prevent mindless rhetoric, i insist that you back up your argument/ideology/opinion with examples.

Thanks to all who choose to answer. It is something i have been meaning to ask for sometime now.

[redstar2000]

The reason we are anti-imperialist doesn't really have anything to do with any doctrine of "sovereignty".

Successful imperialism strengthens the system that we oppose.

Unsuccessful imperialism weakens it.

Therefore, it's in our own class interests for us to adamantly oppose all imperial adventures by "our own" ruling class.

We want to see them defeated militarily, politically, and economically.

We think that's what it will take to purge the working class of the superstition of patriotism.

Which is something that needs to happen in order for proletarian revolution to become possible.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[chaval]

lol redstar you have a knack of being able to explain everything in terms of class struggle and capitalist greed. clever.

state sovereignty should be preserved. i think the only cases in which it can be legitimately violated is if it is being hostile to other nations. ex. USA's intervention in the First Iraq war can be legitimized. another case would be when the state creates an intollerable atmosphere of coersion and/or suffering within the proper state. for instance, military intervention SHOULD have occured during the brakeup of Yugoslavia due to the genocide.

i dont think state sovereignty has much to do with realism, realism is mostly about state interests defined in terms of survival and/or power. usually the latter, so attacking another country or invading it is perfectly justified in the realist view if it is for the sake of power (Napoleonic Wars) or for security (Peloponnesian War) i think state sovereignty falls more under "liberalism" or maybe neoliberalism.

its also important to recognize the rising importance of non-state actors such as the UN who probably should intervene more often than a state but mainly for human rights. non-state agencies have the advantage of not automatically being seen as hostile and "imperialist". also these agencies dont have armies to invade with so they dont exactly infringe on state sovereignty in classic terms.

[James]

Redstar, with respect, i did not mean to imply that all members oppose imperialism on the simple grounds that it is intervention. Although i do think alot of members DO think this.


We think that's what it will take to purge the working class of the superstition of patriotism.


You see this is getting onto sort of what i was hinting at. Although i'm aware that you are refering to the workers of the state that is imperial: it is usually the case that imperialism (one or more states decision to intervene in another state for some reason) is opposed from within the invaded state by nationalist forces.

But anyway, what would you say is the difference between imperialism and intervention. Where do you draw the line. What sort of intervention is ok with you?

+ + +


state sovereignty should be preserved. i think the only cases in which it can be legitimately violated is if it is being hostile to other nations. ex. USA's intervention in the First Iraq war can be legitimized. another case would be when the state creates an intollerable atmosphere of coersion and/or suffering within the proper state. for instance, military intervention SHOULD have occured during the brakeup of Yugoslavia due to the genocide.

So does the second case mean that you support the iraq war?


i dont think state sovereignty has much to do with realism, realism is mostly about state interests defined in terms of survival and/or power. usually the latter, so attacking another country or invading it is perfectly justified in the realist view if it is for the sake of power (Napoleonic Wars) or for security (Peloponnesian War) i think state sovereignty falls more under "liberalism" or maybe neoliberalism.

I see your point, but i still think it applies to the general point of view of world politics that sees the main actors as being states.

I don't think state soverignty falls under freemarket neoliberalism - indeed, quite the opposite. It seems to be the breaking down of as much state power as possible, and the infiltration and invasion of "foreign" markets.



its also important to recognize the rising importance of non-state actors such as the UN who probably should intervene more often than a state but mainly for human rights. non-state agencies have the advantage of not automatically being seen as hostile and "imperialist". also these agencies dont have armies to invade with so they dont exactly infringe on state sovereignty in classic terms.

you see this is what i don't understand. Often those opposed to imperialism as ok with various forms of intervention.
Imperialism comes from the latin imperium: the power to command, authority, command, rule, control etc. Imperialism is the extension of such command and authority.

So essentially, intervention is imperialism. Just is, the purpose of the imperialism seems a little different to "US imperialism". Probably because of different objectives, and the fact that the force will not just be made up of one force. As you stated.
But does that make it ok? Surely that just means it is a grand coalition of forces (so essentially the same as iraq!).

Then you have to question the notion of human rights. It seems perfectly sensible/noble to us, today. In years to come though, will it look like an international version of the british empire attempting to spred civilisation (and concepts of civilisation - such as "rights"). Indeed hardly anyone can agree what "human rights" are, and should be. Not even in one country. Let alone the international community which has a vast range of cultures/perceptions/situations.


I don't know. It is a tricky one.

[kurt]

Do you believe in ultimate state-sovereignty/westphalian system?
To be frankly honest, I've never heard of the "westaphalian" system.

Do you think intervention is "allowed"? If so, what sort. If not, why not.
Well first off, major powers tend to act in whatever way they see fit, regardless of if they're "allowed" to or not, although I suspect that's what your quotations were for, but just making sure.

I believe so-called "intervention" and "imperialism" are the same thing. Intervention just sounds more "legitimate". Any time a nation decides to "intervene" to help "solve" a problem, one must see past the mindless rhetoric spewed by government and ask what is really happening here?. Intervention seems to only be a popular course of action when the country or population that is to be "saved" has a large quantity of useable resources; something to profit from.

There to date, has been no "intervention" in Darfur, despite the obvious mass slaughter. Why? The region has nothing of use to any major power. Iraq however, conviently is the target of "intervention". The oil reserves are just coincidence, right?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chaval+--> (chaval)lol redstar you have a knack of being able to explain everything in terms of class struggle and capitalist greed. clever.[/b]

It's called historical materialism and is really Marx's most brilliant contribution to the study of human societies.

Basically, it's simply a matter of ignoring the rhetoric of public affairs and instead looking to see which class benefits from this or that "idea".

And you don't even need metaphysical "dialectics" to do it...just some hard-nosed common sense.

Millions of people around the world knew immediately that the official American rhetoric surrounding the invasion of Iraq was used toilet paper -- the goal was to grab the oil.

Rather ironic as oil production in Iraq has continued to fall. The resistance has quite sensibly focused on sabotaging oil pipelines and attacking oil tankers. They correctly conclude that if the U.S. can't get what it wants from Iraq, they'll eventually give up and go home.

Good strategy!


James
But anyway, what would you say is the difference between imperialism and intervention? Where do you draw the line? What sort of intervention is ok with you?

We suffer an enormous paucity of "real world" examples of "justified" intervention. Everything we see now is apt to involve imperialism, directly or indirectly.

It's just the kind of world we live in. :angry:

When the Union of South Africa invaded Angola, the Cubans provided military support to the Angolan government and actually defeated the South Africans in the field.

Nothing wrong with that.

China's conquest of Tibet certainly involved proto-imperialist motives...especially considering the large numbers of Chinese that have since been settled in Tibet. Nevertheless, it was a "good thing" as it destroyed one of the worst regimes on the planet -- a truly hideous combination of serfdom and slavery.

Sometimes, "by chance", an imperialist intervention will result in a progressive change...but it's extremely rare. You'd never want to bet your rent money on it.

For example, the quisling regime in Iraq today is known to be worse than Saddam Hussein's regime...torture and murder are so wide-spread that the civilian casualty totals are now thought to approach a half-million.

With many more to come!

That's the normal outcome of imperialist intervention.

Another "real world" example and what was certainly one of Lenin's major blunders.

The fledging USSR offered Finland its independence following October...and Finland accepted that offer. Then there was a massive pro-communist uprising in Finland.

The new Finnish ruling class imported demobilized German troops to impose a "white terror" on Finnish workers. Finnish revolutionaries begged for Soviet military assistance...and Lenin turned them down.

Why? Well, Lenin thought it was "more important" to re-conquer the primitive Islamic territories of the old Czarist Empire.

So the consequence was that Finland became a quasi-fascist military despotism and ended up an ally of the Third Reich.

Oh yeah, and Alexandra Kollentai, the only woman ever to be a member of the Politburo, resigned in outraged disgust...as she had close personal ties with some of the doomed Finnish revolutionaries.

So there is a case where military intervention might have been enormously useful to the Bolsheviks...and they pissed away their chance.

It's not widely known, but there is evidence to suggest that Stalin considered full-scale military intervention against the Nazi conquest of Czechoslovakia. That is, around the same time as the infamous Munich conference, Stalin offered the Czechs "full military support" if they were willing to resist the Nazis.

But the Czech bourgeoisie understood their real class interests and cheerfully accepted Nazi domination in preference to "communism".

And did rather well...until, of course, the Nazi armies on the eastern front collapsed. :lol:

As you can see, it's rather difficult to "generalize" from such a small "sample". A communist society might well send military volunteers to a neighboring country to assist a working class uprising...especially if the old ruling class was actually importing imperialist troops to suppress that uprising.

Otherwise, there doesn't seem to me much to be gained by that approach.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bolshevik butcher]

While I agree with waht red star says, I do believe that self determination is important. A country cannto 'enforce' socialism on another. Only the sovereign working class can do that.

[James]

comradekurt:


To be frankly honest, I've never heard of the "westaphalian" system.

It basically means the system that emerged following the treaty of westphalia. At a crude level, this treaty meant that nations promised not to interfer in other nations. In this respect, it established the authority of one soverignty in one land. Thus rules out intervention in general (although i'm not too sure of the details of the treaty; for example if intervention was allowed if a nation tried to invade another. It makes sense to me though that such intervention would be allowed, to preserve the basic foundations of westphalia).


Well first off, major powers tend to act in whatever way they see fit, regardless of if they're "allowed" to or not, although I suspect that's what your quotations were for, but just making sure.

Ah forgive me. A poor choice of word.
Perhaps a better word would be "justified".


But your point does still stand: a nation's actions will always be justified in its own opinion i suppose.

I meant as a general rule of thumb: your opinion. Do you think intervention is ever justified.



I believe so-called "intervention" and "imperialism" are the same thing.

I agree completely. See my post above about imperium and spreading one's authority.


Intervention just sounds more "legitimate". Any time a nation decides to "intervene" to help "solve" a problem, one must see past the mindless rhetoric spewed by government and ask what is really happening here?. Intervention seems to only be a popular course of action when the country or population that is to be "saved" has a large quantity of useable resources; something to profit from.

There is certainly a large degree of self interest.
Any effective large scale UN action always needs US action; thus, for any UN significant action to take place, the US has to support it.



My question though was do you think it is ever justified? Or are you against all forms of intervention.

[James]

While I agree with waht red star says, I do believe that self determination is important. A country cannto 'enforce' socialism on another. Only the sovereign working class can do that.


This raises another set of questions.
What forms a state?
What about seperatism?

For example, many of the kurds probably supported at one time or another the breaking away of their land to form their own state. Indeed, they effectively had their own state before operation iraqi freedom. (incidently, it does seem now though that the kurds will not be breaking away.... although i wouldn't be surprised if they would try to do so if civil war breaks out).

you say that a country can't enforce socialism on another: can it enforce it onto itself? I suppose what i'm hinting at here is the existance of regionalism/seperatism: and what makes a country.

Would wales come under "british soverignty"? Would cornwall?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:20 AM
The new Finnish ruling class imported demobilized German troops to impose a "white terror" on Finnish workers. Finnish revolutionaries begged for Soviet military assistance...and Lenin turned them down.
This is, of course, false. The Bolshevik government did intervene in the Finnish Civil War, to the extent of its very limited military power at the time.

According to "Red Guards and Workers Militia in the Russian Revolution" by Rex A. Wade: "Between 5,000 and 5,500 Petrograd Red Guards were engaged in Finland between December and April." (page 320). That's a majority of the 8,000 to 9,000 Petrograd Red Guards sent anwhere during this time period. The Finnish Civil War ran from January to May 1917.

The other major theatres of operation during this period were to the south, in the Ukraine, and to the west, asserting control of the front against Germany. (page 319). Trying to "re-conquer the primitive Islamic territories of the old Czarist Empire" as Redstar puts it, was not a major Soviet military operation at the time of the Finnish Civil War.

As for the old Russian army, it was withdrawn in March as required by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which the Soviet government had little choice but to sign given Germany's military superiority. The old army was of little military effectiveness after the revolution anyway.

Just didn't want to let that slander on the early Soviet government go by unchallenged. As always, Redstar is not to be counted on for factual accuracy.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:14 AM
Would wales come under "british soverignty"? Would cornwall?
Under bourgeois "international law" of course it does, and no other state can interfere in what the UK does there.

IMO current international law and the sovereignty of states cannot be regarded as a graven-in-stone commandment by revolutionaries; but it is a useful safeguard against the imperialists...and something to avoid breaking ourselves when possible.

It's interesting to note that the most unambigously successful example of international military intervention by a workers' government - Cuba's intervention in Angola - did not violate Angola's sovereignty by any standard; on the contrary it was the South African invasion which did so.

Having the rules of sovereignty on their side was definitely one of the political advantages for Angola and Cuba in that war; it made it harder for the U.S. to retaliate. (The aftermath of Vietnam was a bigger factor there, of course.)


For example, many of the kurds probably supported at one time or another the breaking away of their land to form their own state. Indeed, they effectively had their own state before operation iraqi freedom. (incidently, it does seem now though that the kurds will not be breaking away.... although i wouldn't be surprised if they would try to do so if civil war breaks out).

Most Kurds still want an independent and united Kurdistan if they see a practical way to achieve it; there recently was a referendum on independence in Iraqi Kurdistan. 95% of more than 2 million Kurds voted for independence.


you say that a country can't enforce socialism on another: can it enforce it onto itself? I suppose what i'm hinting at here is the existance of regionalism/seperatism: and what makes a country.

In principle, it ain't the traditional borders. Not for the working class.

The proletariat can wage no colonial wars, Engels pointed out, and it remains true. Attempting to subjugate another people is incompatible with the revolutionary transformation of society. Denying self-determination destroys the fundamental goal.

In practice, in the course of a revolution? Civil wars are messy things; they tend to spill across any new borders anybody may be trying to set up. Independence? Fine, no problem. But under what class' rule?

The history of the civil wars in the former empire of the tsars is an interesting guide here. The Bolsheviks won in large part because they had the most enlightened nationality policy, rejecting chauvinism and emphasizing self-determination...but they did not fetishize borders old or new. Those are only imaginary lines in the final analysis.

So what does define it? The desire for independence of a distinct people (nationality, ethnicity, whatever you want to call it.)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
The Finnish Civil War ran from January to May 1917.

No, 1918.

I did think it was later than that...which is why I made the error about Soviet military priorities in the primitive Islamist regions.


As for the old Russian army, it was withdrawn in March as required by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which the Soviet government had little choice but to sign given Germany's military superiority.

That happened on March 3, 1918...but the Finnish reds were not finally defeated until May 7th.

During this period, Lenin's government was not being seriously challenged militarily. True, the town of Rostov was captured by counter-revolutionary Cossacks in December 1917. But the civil war in Russia really began as an uprising of the reactionary Czech Legion in Cheliabinsk in June 1918.

So there was a clear-cut "window of opportunity" to extend significant military assistance to the Finnish revolutionaries.

Defenders of Lenin's position can argue that things were just "too disorganized" for revolutionary Russia to intervene in Finland...and we have no way of knowing that now, one way or the other.

And, of course, we likewise have no way of knowing if a Soviet military intervention would have been successful. German troops arrived in Finland on April 3rd and captured Helsinki on April 13th.

We do know the outcome of the counter-revolution in Finland. After the reds were defeated, a "white terror" ensued in which around 19,000 Finns were killed.


According to Red Guards and Workers Militia in the Russian Revolution by Rex A. Wade: "Between 5,000 and 5,500 Petrograd Red Guards were engaged in Finland between December and April."

That's good to hear...and something I did not know. Was this a spontaneous initiative on the part of the Red Guards or did it happen as a consequence of a vote by the Petrograd Soviet or was it a conscious decision by Lenin's government?

If it was a government decision, why was it changed?


As always, Redstar is not to be counted on for factual accuracy.

I do the best I can, champ! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 20 2006, 10:33 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 20 2006, 10:33 AM)
Severian
The Finnish Civil War ran from January to May 1917.

No, 1918. [/b]
Typo on my part. Obviously it wasn't before the Russian Revolution.


I did think it was later than that...which is why I made the error about Soviet military priorities in the primitive Islamist regions.

But that makes your whole point an error. If it was later, when the Red Army existed, of course the Soviet government shoulda sent it. But since it wasn't, and they had no Red Army to send....



As for the old Russian army, it was withdrawn in March as required by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which the Soviet government had little choice but to sign given Germany's military superiority.

That happened on March 3, 1918...but the Finnish reds were not finally defeated until May 7th.

During this period, Lenin's government was not being seriously challenged militarily.

Other than by Germany! Have you forgotten about a little thing called WWI?

Or the unstoppable German offensive after the Bolsheviks initially refused to sign the treaty? Which is why they had to sign the treaty and withdraw the troops from Finland and elsewhere.



According to Red Guards and Workers Militia in the Russian Revolution by Rex A. Wade: "Between 5,000 and 5,500 Petrograd Red Guards were engaged in Finland between December and April."

That's good to hear...and something I did not know. Was this a spontaneous initiative on the part of the Red Guards or did it happen as a consequence of a vote by the Petrograd Soviet or was it a conscious decision by Lenin's government?

It was coordinated by the Soviet government; the book doesn't give details on how the decision was made.


If it was a government decision, why was it changed?

The book says, "In a major battle in March lasting nine days, the Petrograd Red Guard and Finnish Red Guard were decisively beaten, with heavy casualties, and forced to pull back from Finland."

Also see above, Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, for the withdrawal of troops of the old army. Who had played little role in the Finnish Civil War anyway; they simply had no will or organization to fight.

Much of the Bolshevik leadership opposed that treaty, of course...maybe Kollontai's objections you mention were in that context? But that opposition was deeply irrational given the situation.



As always, Redstar is not to be counted on for factual accuracy.

I do the best I can, champ! :lol:

I'm not convinced of that. I think you're downright careless.