Supporting nations 'Militaritly' but not 'Polictically' - ??

[Cassius Clay]

This is in response to a coment I saw in the North Korea thread. One Ferioc (spell) said 'that as was in the case of Iraq' we should support the nation 'militarily' but not 'Politically'.

I believe this to be wrong. Saddam's Army was Fascist and the Bathist regime was Capitalist and oppressed workers (and everyone else for that matter), in 1914 did Lenin, Luxemburg or anyone else support one nation's army against the other? No they didn't, alot of groups who claim to be lefitst (be they Trots, Stalinists or what have you) have made this mistake, simply because they fall into a mistake of somehow creating this image of 'Brave anti-Imperialist fighters'. Does anyone doubt if the Taliban or Saddam had even a tenth of the U$ military might and power they would hesitate to use it? In Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia and other places all sides are anti-working class and as such not one side should be supported. This is the correct Marxist line and to say otherwise is to repeat the horrible crime of the 'Socialists' of 1914 who showed their true colors by approving the war powers and credits.

Thoughts!

[redstar2000]

Perhaps I would go even further down this road than you do, Cassius...or maybe not.

We've had several threads on this board where people attempted to justify their support of U.S. imperialism on the grounds that Saddam was "the next Hitler".

Those who opposed U.S. imperialism were accused of "supporting Saddam".

I cannot speak for others, of course, but as far as I am concerned, the primary task of a real communist is to attack your "own" ruling class without regard for external considerations.

This can certainly be "awkward". Suppose you live in a country where the ruling class there gives the appearance of opposing U.S. imperialism? Do you still attack your "own" ruling class?

I would say yes. Because every modern ruling class is either imperialist now or would be if circumstances permitted. There are no "good" ruling classes. For all their verbal attacks on U.S. policies, the present rulers of countries like France and Germany will either "cut a deal" with U.S. imperialism or else seek to become imperialist rivals to the U.S.

In our era, U.S. imperialism is "the fortress of reaction" for the whole world (as Russia was "the fortress of reaction" for 19th century Europe). Thus any effective resistance to U.S. imperialism anywhere by anybody has some degree of "progressive content".

That doesn't mean we communists must go out of our way to "praise" it, "support" it, "endorse" it, "apologize" for it, or whatever. If it's there, we simply acknowledge that it exists and move on to the main task...attacking our "own" ruling class.

It is quite possible that historians of 2400CE will look back to our era and say that U.S. imperialism was "progressive" in the sense of tearing down the pre-capitalist social norms of Islam and dragging it, kicking and screaming, into the modern world. Historians can afford to be detached.

We can't. In our time, we have no rational choice but to oppose U.S. imperialism by opposing our "own" ruling class in any way we can.

That includes, of course, a vigorous attack on the lackies of imperialism (American or otherwise) wherever they might turn up...even on this board.

:cool:

[kylie]

to be politically supporting a group, organisation or person, you have to agree with at least some of their ideas, plans and practices. to militarily support a group means to take their side over others involved in a conflict, without accepting their ideology or politics.
for example, if a synagogue and the rabbis inside it were being attacked by a group of nazis, would you refuse to help because politically you disagree with its beliefs? well, maybe as a stalinist you would.
you need to remeber there are imperialist countries(UK, US, etc), and their are oppressed countries(Iraq, columbia, etc). this is an expression of the capitalist nature of the world, extracting the wealth from this country for a small minority in other countries. now while in other wars, such as the second world war, revolutionaries supported neither side, this is due to them both being imperialist powers. it was quite like two businesses fighting for customers, in that we should have supported neither.
in the spanish civil war, both anarchists and trotskyists assisted militarily the stalinist republican government, yet still these two groups opposed the government, and looked to overthrow it.
this is how its possible to militarily support a country, but not politically.

[Cassius Clay]

''to be politically supporting a group, organisation or person, you have to agree with at least some of their ideas, plans and practices. to militarily support a group means to take their side over others involved in a conflict, without accepting their ideology or politics.''

Which is not the correct Marxist line. For example the first Gulf War both sides acted as Imperialists and both fought for the oil. Yet party's like Workers World cant stop praising Saddam, while others branded the Taliban as gallant hero's for fighting the U$. Neither side should be supported 'Militarily', becasuse by doing that you merely start to give a certain legitimantcy to their government and policies. And where do you draw the line? Russia in 1914 was far more weaker than German Imperialism and some 'Socialists' in the circumstances of the day declared that they fully 'Supported' the government. Not the correct thing to do.

''for example, if a synagogue and the rabbis inside it were being attacked by a group of nazis, would you refuse to help because politically you disagree with its beliefs? well, maybe as a stalinist you would.''

Really was there any need for that. This thread has nothing to do with Stalin and yet you come up with that pathectic insult. Why do you want to become popular among some of the moderators around here? In answer to your question I would condone it because it is State-terror against defenceless people, I would support the overthrow of that government. The comparision with wars though is wrong, when both sides are oppressive and to differing degress Imperialist.


''you need to remeber there are imperialist countries(UK, US, etc), and their are oppressed countries(Iraq, columbia, etc). this is an expression of the capitalist nature of the world, extracting the wealth from this country for a small minority in other countries. now while in other wars, such as the second world war, revolutionaries supported neither side, this is due to them both being imperialist powers. it was quite like two businesses fighting for customers, in that we should have supported neither.''

I really hope you meant the First World War and not the second, you are right though in regards to the British Empire and the U$ only fighting Nazi Germany and Japan because of rivalring Imperialist interests. However the war of the Soviet Union and the Red Army partisans in China, Albania, Phillipines, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and a dozen other places was entirely justified from the Marxist point of view, these were wars of national liberation and Socialism against Capitalism. Not Capitalists fighting for the spoils among themselves. In Iraq in both wars both sides were Imperialist and as such we should of supported neither.


''in the spanish civil war, both anarchists and trotskyists assisted militarily the stalinist republican government, yet still these two groups opposed the government, and looked to overthrow it.
this is how its possible to militarily support a country, but not politically.''

That's a bad example since the Anarchists ended up fighting for Fascists and the Trots were so intent on overthrowing the 'Stalinist' government that they acted as Franco's spies. How did they support one side 'Militarily' if they delibaretly set about to undermine the military efforts of that side so much they ended up fighting for the other side? It's a question of staying neutral and yet you seem to be going from one extreme to another.


Redstar a imformative post as allways. True Capitalism sometime plays a progressive role (although this is and will become less and less common) like in France 1789, the American Civil War or the NEP. Will historians in four hundred years view today's America as 'progressive' in destroying 'backward' Islam? Well the winners right history and I hope that it is seen for what it is, the unjustified and barbaric actions of a Superpower on it's last knees.

[Saint-Just]

The regime in a nation such Iraq may be worse than that of the U.S., it may not.... However, our primary objective is to further the socialist movement. Therefore we can support one of our enemies fighting a far more powerful enemy of ours on two conditions; that it will be a significant blow to the bigger enemy and that it will not further the smaller enemies aims to such a degree that the socialist movement is threatened.

You cannot say that in every instance you support an enemy militarily but not politically. In some circumstances it is acceptable because it will advance our own movement further.

[kylie]

For example the first Gulf War both sides acted as Imperialists and both fought for the oil. Yet party's like Workers World cant stop praising Saddam
i never mentioned the first gulf war. you correctly state that both sides actions were imperialist.

while others branded the Taliban as gallant hero's for fighting the U$
this is not my view. my opinion on the Taliban is the same as that of the administration that was operating in Iraq, which i have said previously. this is not a new thing, a similar view was expressed by various groups towards the attack on serbia and lebanon for example.

Russia in 1914 was far more weaker than German Imperialism and some 'Socialists' in the circumstances of the day declared that they fully 'Supported' the government
in 1917 Lenin expressed that he supported militarily but not politically Kerensky against Kornilov. So, are you claiming Lenin was not truly socialist? The bolsheviks were politically opposed to the provisional government, yet they helped the defence of it against Kornilov.

Even now we must not support Kerensky's government. This is unprincipled. We may be asked: aren't we going to fight against Kornilov? Of course we must! But this is not the same thing; there is a dividing line here, which is being stepped over by some Bolsheviks who fall into compromise and allow themselves to be carried away by the course of events.
We shall fight, we are fighting against Kornilov, just as Kerensky's troops do, but we do not support Kerensky. On the contrary, we expose his weakness. There is the difference. It is rather a subtle difference, but it is highly essential and must not be forgotten.


Why do you want to become popular among some of the moderators around here?
to my knowledge none of the moderators are of the same ideology as me.

In answer to your question I would condone it because it is State-terror against defenceless people, I would support the overthrow of that government.
so you would support nazis, a much more counter-revolutionary group, over the jews? religion will die out on its own, without this, as you put it 'state terror against defenceless people'.

I really hope you meant the First World War and not the second, you are right though in regards to the British Empire and the U$ only fighting Nazi Germany and Japan because of rivalring Imperialist interests.
correct, this is what i was meaning when i said second world war.

In Iraq in both wars both sides were Imperialist and as such we should of supported neither
you would call Iraq imperialist in the war which has just occured? how so?

[Cassius Clay]

''i never mentioned the first gulf war. you correctly state that both sides actions were imperialist.''

I did as a example. Good we agree on something.

''this is not my view. my opinion on the Taliban is the same as that of the administration that was operating in Iraq, which i have said previously. this is not a new thing, a similar view was expressed by various groups towards the attack on serbia and lebanon for example. ''

I never said it was your view. But alot of groups have fell into this trap. In the case of Lebanon for example, the resistance should of been supported because it was a war of national-liberation against Imperialist occupiers. In the former Yugoslavia both sides were fighting to gain access to the natural rescourses, and both were bombing innocent civilians to hell. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the people must be supported against Imperialist invasion, but at the same time I believe so should the rank and file in the Imperialist army invading. Therefor to support one side over the other 'Militarily' is wrong, both sides deserved to be overthrown.

''in 1917 Lenin expressed that he supported militarily but not politically Kerensky against Kornilov. So, are you claiming Lenin was not truly socialist?''

No I'm not. I bought up the example of 1914 and the betrayal of the 'Socialists' everywhere from Petrograd to Paris. You've bought up this.

''The bolsheviks were politically opposed to the provisional government, yet they helped the defence of it against Kornilov.

Even now we must not support Kerensky's government. This is unprincipled. We may be asked: aren't we going to fight against Kornilov? Of course we must! But this is not the same thing; there is a dividing line here, which is being stepped over by some Bolsheviks who fall into compromise and allow themselves to be carried away by the course of events.
We shall fight, we are fighting against Kornilov, just as Kerensky's troops do, but we do not support Kerensky. On the contrary, we expose his weakness. There is the difference. It is rather a subtle difference, but it is highly essential and must not be forgotten.


Well considering Kornilov was going to hang the 'Bolsheviks as German Spies' and given the circumstances this was the correct thing to do. Totally different to 1914, and also there is Lenin's April Thesis which calls for the soldiers to desert. Thus clearly not supporting the provisional government 'Militarily'. The Kornilov coup was a set of circumstances, which eventually ended up in the Bolsheviks favor.

''to my knowledge none of the moderators are of the same ideology as me.''

Listen. You bought up or rather snuck in a pathectic insult which had no place in this thread. As a 'Stalinist' I would proudly point out that the Jews who rose up in the Ghetto were partly 'Stalinist' and it was the Red Army who liberated the camps and exposed the Fascist horror. NOT somehow ingore or defend the begginings of this horror. Anyway this is off topic. I bought it up because I found it offensive and unneccsarry.


''so you would support nazis, a much more counter-revolutionary group, over the jews? religion will die out on its own, without this, as you put it 'state terror against defenceless people'.''

Oh dear. In answer to your question. NO NO and NO. Read my post again, and don't make it out that I somehow support 'the state terror against defenceless people' (my words anyway I said it like that because that's what it is) as progressive in getting rid of religion. I said that I would condone the horrible act and support the overthrow of the government. However I see little difference in a Capitalist power (Nazi Germany) which does that fighting a rival Capitalist power which has killed 60 million Africans.


''correct, this is what i was meaning when i said second world war.''

Amen.

''you would call Iraq imperialist in the war which has just occured? how so?''

In 1939 Poland was a Imperialist power who had annexed parts of the Ukraine and Czechslovakia. Then a bigger Imperialist power came along and attacked it unprovoked. Does that mean that we should suddenly support the Right-wing Polish regime 'Militarily'? No we shouldn't, just as Saddam has invaded Iran, Kuwait and oppresses his own citizens viciously.

[kylie]

In the former Yugoslavia both sides were fighting to gain access to the natural rescourses, and both were bombing innocent civilians to hell.
but it was Yugoslavia that was under threat, and being bullied aroun. it was much more of an oppressed country than an imperialist country.

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the people must be supported against Imperialist invasion, but at the same time I believe so should the rank and file in the Imperialist army invading. Therefor to support one side over the other 'Militarily' is wrong, both sides deserved to be overthrown.

Yes there should be support for revolutionary acts towards both sides, but this i would say is on the political side, and not the military side. So it is covered upon saying you dont support something politically. I disagree its wrong to support one side over the other in the situations given, the reason being that to not oppose the imperialist militarily, you are condoning them and their actions. And so to be against them, you must therefore want their defeat, resulting in the support of the oppressor.

Well considering Kornilov was going to hang the 'Bolsheviks as German Spies' and given the circumstances this was the correct thing to do.
isnt this similar to the situation between the imperialist countries and us? upon invading Iraq, the US+UK are strengthening their military power in the region, something that is a threat to any potential socialist revolution. You can be sure that if Iran was to revolt against its government, there would be intervention to make sure no socialist government became of it.

and also there is Lenin's April Thesis which calls for the soldiers to desert. Thus clearly not supporting the provisional government 'Militarily'
could you quote this? to my knowledge it doesnt call for what you say.

Read my post again, and don't make it out that I somehow support 'the state terror against defenceless people' (my words anyway I said it like that because that's what it is) as progressive in getting rid of religion.

In answer to your question I would condone it because it is State-terror against defenceless people

No we shouldn't, just as Saddam has invaded Iran, Kuwait and oppresses his own citizens viciously.

oppression is not a form of imperialism, first off. as for the invasions of Iran and Kuwait, they were some time ago. Like i have said, at the time it was acting like an imperialist power, but not now.