"I support the troops...

[Chapter 24]

...but not the war*."

How do you react when people say this? Is it a legitimate statement? In my opinion, it is not. When you support the soldiers of the imperialist aggressor you are still supporting the imperialist war.

Thoughts?

*Iraq War

[Dean]

...but not the war*."

How do you react when people say this? Is it a legitimate statement? In my opinion, it is not. When you support the soldiers of the imperialist aggressor you are still supporting the imperialist war.

Thoughts?

*Iraq War

Conceivably, the statement can mean that one supports the interests of the lower class who find enlistment to be a good way out of poverty, for instance. I am wary of this stance, but I am am aware of how important it is to revolutionize the police and miliatary of imperial states.

[spartan]

I think they mean the individual troops not the army.

A leftist who said exactly the same thing to me justified it by saying that the troops were oppressed by their officers and forced at the pain of court martial to carry out dangerous actions that can result in not only their injury and/or death but also the injury and/or death of others.

I am not so sure though?

[FreeFocus]

No wars without soldiers to fight them..

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's an absurd statement.

The way I respond to that is, "yes, I support the troops. I pay their salaries." :rolleyes:

[F9]

If you support the troops you support and the war,there is no way out.Its their choice to go and fight,even if they get "brainwashed".

Fuserg9:star:

[Dean]

If you support the troops you support and the war,there is no way out.Its their choice to go and fight,even if they get "brainwashed".

This is an absurd, un-marxist position. It is important not to characterize this type of choice as if it were the free responsiblity of the actor, primarily because the entire communist paradigm rests on the recognition of social forces as actuators in the development of the individual.

[freakazoid]

If you support the troops you support and the war,there is no way out.Its their choice to go and fight,even if they get "brainwashed".

No, you can support the troops while not supporting the war.

[RGacky3]

You support the troops as individuals, and you hope they can come home and not have a war. Lenin supported the troops, and the troops, ended up supporting him and ended up aiding him to power, and thus stopping the war. Eugene Debs supported the troops as well, and wanted them to stop fighting and resist.

[Plagueround]

I support the war, but not the troops. It's not a very popular position.

But seriously, I don't like such statements because they're such blanket statements that could mean a number of things, and are really nothing more than a patriotism and loyalty check.

This usage of the phrase these days is of course meant to indicate distaste for the Iraq war, which to me either ignores that other wars are being fought or, alternately, shows that you're okay with all the other imperialist power grabs on the table, just not the Iraq one.

"I support the troops, but not the war" is just another in a long line of lame, watered down sentiments people use to make themselves feel better about the kind of crap they allow this country to pull.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

"I support the troops because I don't support the war"

Corrected.

And thank you Dean, seriously. I'm joining the NAVY for my own benefit and will happily contribute to American Hegemony. Hundreds of thousands of young people join because they aren't educated, are poor, and nobody is offering them other routes out of this situation.

[BobKKKindle$]

the troops were oppressed by their officers and forced at the pain of court martial to carry out dangerous actions

Combatants are not actually forced to join the military and there are always other career paths available which do not directly involve the brutal oppression of the developing world. There is no "excuse" for joining the military and fighting on behalf of the capitalist state to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie in overseas military operations, and ultimately if the peaceful withdrawl of American troops from a conflict zone is not possible, the death of imperialist combatants is progressive, from the perspective of movements fighting against national oppression, and the international proletariat.


Lenin supported the troops...

This is not applicable to the current situation for two reasons - firstly, unlike the russian army, which was comprised of peasant forces who were conscripted with no choice in the matter, the American army is based on volunteers who are not phyiscally coerced to join the army, but make a choice with the knowledge that they will participate in invasions against sovereign states. Secondly, the First World War was a war between imperialist powers whereas the most important form of conflict in the current political context is conflict between the United States and developing countries, i.e. conflict between oppressor and oppressed nations.


I'm joining the NAVY for my own benefit and will happily contribute to American Hegemony

If you would "happily contribe to American Hegemony" I hope you die in combat at the hands of a national liberation movement.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If you would "happily contribe to American Hegemony" I hope you die in combat at the hands of a national liberation movement.

No, but I'll shoot missiles at them.

And outside of Iraq, what country is trying to get liberated from the US? Texas?

[turquino]

It's a myth that the common soldier is destitute and was forced by economic necessity to fight. The ranks of the armed forces are majority middle class and white, and even the few 'poor' soldiers have plenty of other employment options open. Right now there's no shortage of service sector jobs available in the domestic economy. They might not be particularly glamorous, but they're a whole lot better than what's available to your average Iraqi.

[Plagueround]

I'm joining the NAVY for my own benefit and will happily contribute to American Hegemony. Hundreds of thousands of young people join because they aren't educated, are poor, and nobody is offering them other routes out of this situation.

One of my brother's best friends joined up for similar reasons. He is now confined to a wheelchair and unable to fully communicate with his family beyond occasional grunts, the result of a roadside bomb that left him in this condition and killed everyone else in the vehicle. The worst part of it is when you look into his eyes, you can still see the fear and confusion in them.

But at least he gets money for college, right? :(

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

One of my brother's best friends joined up for similar reasons. He is now confined to a wheelchair and unable to fully communicate with his family beyond occasional grunts, the result of a roadside bomb that left him in this condition and killed everyone else in the vehicle. The worst part of it is when you look into his eyes, you can still see the fear and confusion in them.

But at least he gets money for college, right? :(

Hence why I joined the NAVY.



It's a myth that the common soldier is destitute and was forced by economic necessity to fight. The ranks of the armed forces are majority middle class and white, and even the few 'poor' soldiers have plenty of other employment options open. Right now there's no shortage of service sector jobs available in the domestic economy. They might not be particularly glamorous, but they're a whole lot better than what's available to your average Iraqi.

Blah blah blah

African-Americans make up 12.5% of the US population, and 22.5% of enlisted personnel, and 40% of the military is made up of people of color.

More than 70% of enlisted personnel joined because of a lack of civilian employment opportunities or other economic factors. Less than 5% joined primarily for patriotic or public service reasons.

Who the fuck compares their life to that of an Iraqi's? Besides, the work our soldiers are doing will help guarantee the quality of the everyday Iraqis life will improve.

[al8]

...but not the war*."

How do you react when people say this? Is it a legitimate statement? In my opinion, it is not. When you support the soldiers of the imperialist aggressor you are still supporting the imperialist war.

Thoughts?

*Iraq War

With "Support our deserters not the the troops." 'Support our troops but not the war' is similar to saying 'Support the rapist but not the rape.'

Help networks for deserters should be a priority to a healthy anti-imperialist anti-war movement. Support should go only to mutineers and deserters.

[apathy maybe]

I'll support the troops when they support the revolution.

Same as I'll support cops, when they stop enforcing the laws of the oppressors.

Basically, the military and police are tools of the ruling classes, and don't *deserve* any support. They uphold, without question in theory, because they get fired (or shot, imprisoned etc.) otherwise, the laws and orders that they are given. If they are told to shoot someone, they do. If they are told that someone is a dangerous criminal, that person is, regardless of any evidence.

They are the *scum* of society in so many cases. Some Marxists talk about Lumpen-Prols being scum. Well most Lumpen have nothing on cops.


So yeah, fuck the troops. They joined knowing that they could (and in this climate would) be sent to war, they did it voluntarily.


(Not to mention, "I support the troops, but not the war" is patriotic bullshit.)

[Demogorgon]

The reality of American politics is that you have to pretend to worship the military and particularly "those brave men and women who fight for freedom". It is the same principle as when medieval philosophers strongly professed their belief in God before writing on the subject, no matter what they actually said. It is just one of those things that has to be said.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't wish them success, but I'd rather they stay alive - as I would love if all Iraqis could, as well. Unfortunately if I say "I don't support the troops" some interpret my statement to mean that I wish them harm.

[pusher robot]

With "Support our deserters not the the troops." 'Support our troops but not the war' is similar to saying 'Support the rapist but not the rape.

Or "hate the sin, love the sinner."

Hmmm....is forgiveness a bourgeouis virtue?

[Killfacer]

I think it is possible to have empathy for the young soldiers sent to fight. But to say you "support" them would suggest that you supported their mission.

[BobKKKindle$]

And outside of Iraq, what country is trying to get liberated from the US? Texas? Afghanistan is also under US occupation, which has given rise to a powerful national movement which is attempting to force the withdrawal of US troops through armed struggle and establish an independent government which reflects the concerns of ordinary Afghan people. It is partly due to the strength of the national movement both in Iraq and Afghanistan that the US has been unable to occupy other countries which contains resources of strategic value under the pretense of spreading democracy to the Middle East, which was used to justify the invasion of Iraq despite the fact that the US has historically been willing to violate the democratic institutions of developing countries when an elected government has challenged the economic interests of the ruling elite, as in the case of Mossadeq in 1953. In addition to these two examples of hostile occupation, there are many other countries where the US currently maintains military bases despite the opposition of the general population (for example, Saudi Arabia) and the US also provides military assistance to authoritarian governments which are currently fighting against progressive movements such as the FARC-EP in Colombia. This shows that the US military imperialism (as distinct from imperialism maintained through "peaceful" means such as the use of global institution to implement policies which enhance the interests of US firms at the expense of ordinary people by allowing for the privatization of state assets, and the elimination of regulations which control the movement of capital between states, in addition other marked-based reforms) is extensive.


Besides, the work our soldiers are doing will help guarantee the quality of the everyday Iraqis life will improve.

Really? Iraq was one of the most progressive state in the Middle East before the US invasion took place, measured in terms of the level of education amongst the general population, access to key amenities such as clean water and a basic standard of nutrition, and many other social indicators. The US invasion has resulted in a dramatic fall in the standard of living and US firms hired by the occupation government have failed to restore important utilities. This is why Iraqi people want the US to withdraw and support attacks on the occupation forces.

[Trystan]

"The troops" are not the problem, clearly. It's the politicians. It wouldn't wish death on any of the people over there.

[molotovsforthehouseless]

"The troops" are not the problem, clearly. It's the politicians. It wouldn't wish death on any of the people over there.

Agreed, my uncle (ex-uncle, whatever) signed up for the army before the war started, but, wasn't sent out until about a year in.

He came back alright, and I think he got sent back, but, when I saw him, he was talking about how the war was absolutely wrong, even at that point.


I'll support one troop.

The troops didn't start this war. But, at the moment, they aren't stopping it either.

[Dros]

I think the troops are fighting the war.

I support the anti-imperialist struggle of the people of Iraq.

[Plagueround]

Hence why I joined the NAVY.


You are such a piece of shit to leave such a smarmy comment about that. But nothing bad ever happens to anyone in the Navy either...right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Indianapolis_(CA-35)


Right?

Fuck you.

[Yes]

I support the troops... Meaning I don't want them to die. I hope they can all come home relatively uninjured mentally/physically, but I (obviously) don't support their actions in Iraq, whether they wanted to go over or not.

[Lynx]

I don't support the troops. I also don't hero-worship them. Soldiers are tools of the state, they serve to protect the interests of the state. Don't ever forget that.

[danyboy27]

well, since they work for me, i support them, but i will never hesitate to critiquize them, or to compliment them when they are doing good.

Peoples here seem to freak out when we start talking about the army, all they see is imperialism, hegemony etc. But even in a communist country this kind of operation and action would happen. If america where communist, you can be sure they are gonna intervene. Political and economical system never stopped that kind of behavior, from the antiquity to the cold war, to today.

countries will always try to enlarge their spheres of influence, always.

[Lynx]

Hence, the need to bring about the end of nation-states. Even WWII was said to be a manufactured cure for the Great Depression, and not purely a noble struggle against fascism.

[RGacky3]

the American army is based on volunteers who are not phyiscally coerced to join the army, but make a choice with the knowledge that they will participate in invasions against sovereign states. Secondly, the First World War was a war between imperialist powers whereas the most important form of conflict in the current political context is conflict between the United States and developing countries, i.e. conflict between oppressor and oppressed nations.


Do you really expect people trying to make a living, trying to get something in life to make geo-political desicions? Why should they, they don't have a choice anyway what happens in the world, they are just making desicions, you can't expect everyone to be Gandis, some people jsut want to get along.

[danyboy27]

Hence, the need to bring about the end of nation-states. Even WWII was said to be a manufactured cure for the Great Depression, and not purely a noble struggle against fascism.

we cant

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You are such a piece of shit to leave such a smarmy comment about that. But nothing bad ever happens to anyone in the Navy either...right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Indianapolis_(CA-35)


Right?

Fuck you.

First, getting eaten by sharks would be the worst way to go out.

Second, he joined a a military wing which is designed to go into hostile situations. It was his decision to do so, but all I'm saying is I'd rather not volunteer to go into a situation where such a thing can occur.

I didn't mean to be smarmy, just pointing out that I've seen these stories on the news about disabled vets, and don't want to end up on one of those programs. Anybody joining the Army or Marines should weigh that risk, obviously.

[Dr Mindbender]

it is possible to support the troops and be anti war at the same time.

An anti war person supports them by calling for their return home. In my opinion the real anti troop ones are the pro war lot because every day they spend there more and more prole soldiers are dying for the class enemy.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I support the troops when they desert or mutiny until then they just get encouraged to do so.

I like the class war take on the war


_______ class war_______________________
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1463/fuckthisforagameofsoildtr6.jpg[/URL]
MORE THAN 13,000 SERVICE PERSONNEL
HAVE GONE ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE SINCE
THE INVASION OF IRAQ WITH AN AMAZING
1200 STILL ON THE RUN! STRANGELY THE
GOVERNMENT BLAMES DOMESTIC PROBLEMS
RATHER THAN THE HIGH PROBABILITY OF
BEING SHOT OR BLOWN TO PIECES FOR THIS
STAGGERING STATISTIC.
WITH THE BRITISH army at full stretch in Iraq and
Afghanistan and soldiers being away from home more
and more with little time to recover there seems little
alternative to them but to fuck off. When they do
finally get home Class War says good luck to ‘em!
In a small way of supporting this direct action Class
War will be free to any soldier at home or currently
on duty.

[Bud Struggle]

well, since they work for me, i support them, but i will never hesitate to critiquize them, or to compliment them when they are doing good.

Peoples here seem to freak out when we start talking about the army, all they see is imperialism, hegemony etc. But even in a communist country this kind of operation and action would happen. If america where communist, you can be sure they are gonna intervene. Political and economical system never stopped that kind of behavior, from the antiquity to the cold war, to today.

countries will always try to enlarge their spheres of influence, always.

Well said! :thumbup:

[Zurdito]

supporting someone means you endorse and, if possible, offer practical help for, what they are trying to accomplish. the job the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing is to bring the country under imperialist cotnrol, so if you "support" them in any meaningful sense, it means you support them in what they are doing, i.e., the aforementioned.

To view them as having the potentital to be won over to something which you would or do support is different.

To say you "support" them in some abstract sense when actually are against what they are doing, is completely empty.

I wouldn't even use the phrase "I support the working class". It's meaningless. I support the working class when it is in struggle against the bourgeoisie. I don't support, for example, a worker in the local call centre who is trying to get promoted above the others, I don't "support" in any meaningful sense, do I? If I am indifferent or even hostile to his current aims, then how do I "support" him?

wow that was a long post to make a basic point but such crappy phrases like one really do piss me off when I hear them.

[danyboy27]

you can support your troops and not supporting a specific conflict, but advocating another one, wanting reforms in the army etc.
Me for exemple, i think canada should have a better army, and i think we could have more equipement if we would buy it from the russian, spare part would be cheaper etc. Even if i dont really believe in the current afghan conflict, i do believe our guys are getting a good formation here, we havnt been on the field for years before.

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy around, for a bunch of guy advocating the revolution and the overthrow of the system, that a little bit weird to hear you guy complaining about a war:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: i call that double standard.
you can be against a war, but if you are a complete antiwar person, then you should not advocating revolution or class struggle at all, since they are wars.
so much fun here:thumbup::thumbup:

[RGacky3]

I can also say, I support the terrorists, not the terrorism! Many of their causes are just (ending the occupation, getting American troops out of their country), but they way they go about it is wrong. That statement, I support the terrorists, not the terrorism, is pretty close to saying I support the troops not the war, but are statements I would say.

[danyboy27]

I can also say, I support the terrorists, not the terrorism! Many of their causes are just (ending the occupation, getting American troops out of their country), but they way they go about it is wrong. That statement, I support the terrorists, not the terrorism, is pretty close to saying I support the troops not the war, but are statements I would say.

you should have said: i support resistance movement, but not terrorism.
and if you support resistance, you support a form of armed conflict, that mean you support peoples in uniform, carrying weapon, fighting another force.

so, at the end you are supporting an army, somehow.

BUT if you are an antiwar freak (no offense) you should not support the insurgents, or the soldier doing this battle, since you are against war.

[Hawk_]

Think about our defense situation without the soldiers of America

[al8]

Or "hate the sin, love the sinner."

Hmmm....is forgiveness a bourgeouis virtue?

"Support the sinner not the sinning" (meaning assist the act but feign distance hypocritically)... would be a more correct comparison.
Making null or suspending retribution is a tactic (not a virtue) which everybody uses, upper and lower class alike, according to circumstance.

[Plagueround]

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy around, for a bunch of guy advocating the revolution and the overthrow of the system, that a little bit weird to hear you guy complaining about a war:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: i call that double standard.
you can be against a war, but if you are a complete antiwar person, then you should not advocating revolution or class struggle at all, since they are wars.
so much fun here:thumbup::thumbup:

You make two mistakes here. 1. Revolutionary leftists are not against all armed conflict, that would be overly sappy liberals with crystals around their necks. We don't agree with the war and the armed forces as they exist because of what they enforce and represent.
They do not represent the interests of the people of those countries, unless those people happen to be the middle eastern equivalent of the monopoly guy and stand to make a shit ton of money on the war and it's aftermath. The social reformers you seem to invest your faith in now won't do anything to change this, they're content to continue exploiting other countries to uphold their system.

2. You assume that class struggle will be inherently violent, although history is probably with you on this one because the bougeois have alomst always turned the otherwise limited and minimal violence of socialist revolutions into bloodbaths. We're not calling for a literal war when we call for class war, we're just not ruling out the possibility that one will need to be fought.

[Plagueround]

Think about our defense situation without the soldiers of America

In what context? That's really, really vague.
I know the "founding fathers" most libertarians fetishize were against the rise of such a bloated army, but beyond that you haven't presented anything to think about.

[Dr Mindbender]

Think about our defense situation without the soldiers of America
you wouldnt need soldiers if it werent for the scumbag politicians and corporocrats creating enemies in the first place.

[RGacky3]

you should have said: i support resistance movement, but not terrorism.
and if you support resistance, you support a form of armed conflict, that mean you support peoples in uniform, carrying weapon, fighting another force.

so, at the end you are supporting an army, somehow.

What I mean by that is I support their goals, they may me noble, but not their means. When it comes to the troops, I don't support their goals, or their means, but I realize they are not the problem or the cause, they are just pawns, so I support them in the sense that I hope they get home ok.


Think about our defense situation without the soldiers of America

When was the last time the American military did anything to do with defending the United States? 1812 maybe?


BUT if you are an antiwar freak (no offense) you should not support the insurgents, or the soldier doing this battle, since you are against war.

I dont' know what an antiwar freak is :P, but I don't support, in the fullest sense of the word either of them, they are in war, doing what people do in war, so I can't judge them, I can judge, however, those who make the desicions to go to war over an imperialistic chess game, and I can judge the system that encoureges that.

That being said, it is possible to support the troops and not the war. The troops did'nt decide on the war.

[Dr Mindbender]

When was the last time the American military did anything to do with defending the United States? 1812 maybe?
.

the other OI'ers would probably argue pearl harbour. Although that was arguably a colony.

Its true though, i dont think america will ever be in danger of conventional invasion again despite it's shitty foreign policy.

[RGacky3]

the other OI'ers would probably argue pearl harbour. Although that was arguably a colony.

What America did after Pearl Harbor was relatiation, not defense.

Really there is no justification for Americas massiave military, obviously its the military-industrial complex and imerialistic musscle, but its impossible to try and justify it morally without looking like an idiot. I wish more Americans would just be honest about it, this is how a conversation should go.

Dude: "America is Imperialistic and oppressive."
American Patriot: "Yeah its great, we own the world"
Dude: "But American power oppresses people for its own profit"
AMerican Patriot: "Yeah fuck em, we're making money."
Dude: "Ok"

Thats how all of those conversations should go, because thats pretty much what it is.

[Bud Struggle]

Dude: "America is Imperialistic and oppressive."
American Patriot: "Yeah its great, we own the world"
Dude: "But American power oppresses people for its own profit"
AMerican Patriot: "Yeah fuck em, we're making money."
Dude: "Ok"


RGacky: please don't quote me again without attribution. :cursing:

TomK, American Patriot

:lol:

[ShyFox]

I always understood that position as meaning "yeah, we're proud that you're willing to go risk your neck for whatever and stuff and we really are grateful, but we don't really think that it's necessary that you're there. In fact, the most supportive thing I can think of is to try and get you home ASAP."

Or at least that's what my little army brain tells me to do.:D

[ShyFox]

Hey, what about troops that enlisted before Iraq and object to the mission, but are currently kind of screwed, or dead...possibly both? Or any Canucks who signed on to go on peacekeeping missions, but all of a sudden, as my CO put it "we're kinda in the middle of a war here"?

[don]

As a former military man, I would like to offer my opinion. The military system we have is voluntary, with no one forcing anyone to join. If those who are already in, really felt strongly against what they were during, they could disobey orders or go AWOL. Sure they may get a slap on the hand, but if they really felt strongly about it, they could fight it. No one is making them pull the triggers of their weapons. I have no pity on them, regardless of their backgrounds. So yes, I strong proclaim, FUCK THE TROOPS

[Forward Union]

I prefer Bill Hicks' "I support the war, but oppose the troops"

In seriousness, I support all workers regardless of profession. While some workers work in incredibly detrimental industries, like logging, Nuclear waste dumping or the millirary, they are still workers. And it is fundementally not their fault that they happen to find themselves having to carry out capitalisms evils. We can all say that "if they didn't fight there'd be no wars" and that's correct. But you can say that about any aspect of capitaism. The real question is how we convince them of that? well, the same way we need t convince our colleagues that they need to occupy their workplaces. By building unions and community organisations.

[Bud Struggle]

As a former military man, I would like to offer my opinion. The military system we have is voluntary, with no one forcing anyone to join. If those who are already in, really felt strongly against what they were during, they could disobey orders or go AWOL. Sure they may get a slap on the hand, but if they really felt strongly about it, they could fight it. No one is making them pull the triggers of their weapons. I have no pity on them, regardless of their backgrounds. So yes, I strong proclaim, FUCK THE TROOPS

They are 18. They are the product of 12 years of indoctrination. They are testosterone driven and gun ho for action. They have had (for the most part) a comfortable way of life and they want to preserve it. They are good people with not a lot of common sense and most haven't been 20 miles from the place of their birth.

They are high school grads with no job or no place to go.

The people that get them to join are WAY smarter and more clever than they are. Give them some slack.

Hey, don--you joined up. Didn't they love you enough? Just because you couldn't make any friends don't piss on those that could.

[Drace]

It doesn't make much sense.

I suppose its simply saying that you just care for the troops. Or else it makes no sense.

[one of us]

ok the normal soldier has to be obey orders or be court martialed or if it is in a time of battle be shot by his immediate supervisor, listen i dont approve of the war but i feel for the poor bastards that got sucked into it when all they wanted was to sucker the government into giving them money for college. noone out there wants to kill, noone that ive met enjoys it.

so basically the statement i support the troops but not the war is saying that the person feels that the war is a ridiculous concept and that the troops should be returned home.

[Sentinel]

ok the normal soldier has to be obey orders or be court martialed or if it is in a time of battle be shot by his immediate supervisor, listen i dont approve of the war but i feel for the poor bastards that got sucked into it when all they wanted was to sucker the government into giving them money for college. noone out there wants to kill, noone that ive met enjoys it.

so basically the statement i support the troops but not the war is saying that the person feels that the war is a ridiculous concept and that the troops should be returned home.

But the argument is quite stupid. There are always alternatives to betraying your class and murdering workers of other countries in the name of Great Capital. Class treason is unacceptable.

If those people were starving, I'd understand the position that they are 'forced' to join the army. But getting money for an education from the state as payment for taking part in the slaughtering of proletarians abroad is just vile.

It's being a Judas against your class, like the christians would say.

[timbaly]

When most people I know say "I support the troops, not the war" they mean:

"I do not think we should blame the soldiers for the war, it is not their fault. We do not think they are evil people for being in the military. We want them to come home safely. We do not think the military should be fighting the war."

[RGacky3]

But the argument is quite stupid. There are always alternatives to betraying your class and murdering workers of other countries in the name of Great Capital. Class treason is unacceptable.

Your an idiot, first of all, they arn't betraying their class, in their eyes they are doing their job and protecting their home (they are wrong but thats what they are told.) Most soldiers propbably don't have a class consience, and why would they, their class most likely hav'nt done anything for them, and the only way to get ahead is to think about number 1.

Obviously we are trying to change that but to put blaim on people for "class treason" is rediculous and dangerous.


. But getting money for an education from the state as payment for taking part in the slaughtering of proletarians abroad is just vile.


You need to learn some empathy, i.e. looking at things from the standpoint of the other person.

[timbaly]

If those people were starving, I'd understand the position that they are 'forced' to join the army. But getting money for an education from the state as payment for taking part in the slaughtering of proletarians abroad is just vile.

There are many people who do not go to the military who are not hoping to get college out of it. Many people just want a structured life to flee from the uncertainties of home. A lot of those who volunteer are from places without many job opportunities. Those who volunteer often fear the lack of a steady pay check and hope that adding the military to their resume will make themselves more marketable in the to employers. I think that calling them class traitors is too simplistic of a way to look at it even though there are other alternatives as you pointed out.

[Sentinel]

first of all, they arn't betraying their class, in their eyes they are doing their job and protecting their home (they are wrong but thats what they are told.)The fact that they don't realise what they are doing doesn't make it undone.


Most soldiers propbably don't have a class consience, and why would they, their class most likely hav'nt done anything for them, and the only way to get ahead is to think about number 1.It certainly seems as at least those who join up in the US Imperialist military don't have any class consciousness. I'm not blaming them for that, but I'm still going to call them out on it if they do despicable things against their class and against their own class interests.

First after they realise the very basic fact that it's not OK to murder other workers to get your education paid for you and grow a class consciousness, can any further improvement occur. Sorry.


Obviously we are trying to change that but to put blaim on people for "class treason" is rediculous and dangerous.I'm not sure what your ideology is, but personally I'm a firm believer in the following: communists must be one with the working class, and thus we must always tell the workers the truth. We aren't to lie to the workers, ever.

Being an advocate of the truth can be dangerous, yes. But it's honest and I believe honesty pays off in the end, if your goal is to get people to listen to your ideas.


You need to learn some empathy, i.e. looking at things from the standpoint of the other person.It's pretty fucking rich to use that argument in defense of mercenaries, people who kill for a wage and for an education, you know.

[JimmyJazz]

...but not the war*."

How do you react when people say this? Is it a legitimate statement? In my opinion, it is not. When you support the soldiers of the imperialist aggressor you are still supporting the imperialist war.

Thoughts?

*Iraq War

I don't support the American troops any more than I support the troops of other bourgeois governments. Which is to say not at all.

If someone wants to accuse me of wishing death on individual American soldiers, they need to have the balls to do so explicitly. I'm not gonna get tricked by a vague "don't you support the troops?" into denying accusations against me that had no basis in anything I said.

No, of course I don't support the troops, or the government that sends them to their death. The whole system is fucked.

----

Also, how many Iraqis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003) have been killed in this war? Let's take the middle estimate of 655,000 from the Lancet Study. And then let's assume that American troops are responsible for an incredibly conservative 5% of those, or 32,750 deaths. Compare that to the 4122 dead American troops and you get a ratio of about 8:1. With those kinds of numbers, isn't every dead American soldier most likely a net savings in human lives? Obviously peace in Iraq and withdrawal of all coalition troops is what I would really like to see, but in the meantime I have no right to tell an Iraqi he can't take up arms against the coalition occupiers. Looking at the math, he may very well be fighting for the lesser evil (1 American death instead of 8 Iraqi deaths).

I would also support the killing of American troops for reasons of deterrence, if it actually worked. But it doesn't. People have always died in wars, and it's never impeded the ability of any government to raise an army.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I can't wait to go overseas and drink proletariat blood.

Just kidding. I would be a Marine if I did.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't support the American troops any more than I support the troops of other bourgeois governments. Which is to say not at all.


How do you avoid the IRS?

[Plagueround]

I can't wait to go overseas and drink proletariat blood.

See, now you're just trying too hard.

[Junius]

The Petrograd Guard put down the revolution in 1905.

In 1917 they were amongst the most militant.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The fact that they don't realise what they are doing doesn't make it undone.

Or maybe they're just protecting their home from terrorist attack.



It certainly seems as at least those who join up in the US Imperialist military don't have any class consciousness. I'm not blaming them for that, but I'm still going to call them out on it if they do despicable things against their class and against their own class interests.

First after they realise the very basic fact that it's not OK to murder other workers to get your education paid for you and grow a class consciousness, can any further improvement occur. Sorry.


:rolleyes:

http://www.infoimagination.org/ps/iraq/images/fighters.jpg

"Unless you leave, we're going to file an injunction with the union...and then go back to killing gays and pretty girls!"



I'm not sure what your ideology is, but personally I'm a firm believer in the following: communists must be one with the working class, and thus we must always tell the workers the truth. We aren't to lie to the workers, ever.


LoL you make it sound like workers and the lower classes are the ones who oppose violence.

Let me ask, is there a time when war is justified? When a nation which has the stregnth, must tell another group that the repression or genocide or terrorism they condone is wrong, and they're going to pay?

[JimmyJazz]

How do you avoid the IRS?

Your MO seems to be making snarky comments and later denying they were meant to be snarky. How annoying.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

See, now you're just trying too hard.

Actually, it was way too easy. Just watched Borat.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Your MO seems to be making snarky comments and later denying they were meant to be snarky. How annoying.

Uhhh...ok. Avoid the hard question.

If you pay taxes, you support the troops and every action our govt undertakes.

If you don't, you go to jail. You're also a revolutionary, though. Nobody said it'd be easy.

So, obvioulsy, either you support the troops or you found a way to avoid the IRS, which is next to impossible.

[JimmyJazz]

And part 2 of the MO arrives like clockwork.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

And part 2 of the MO arrives like clockwork.

Same to you.

Avoid the hard question, you troop-supporting hypocrite. :D

[Sentinel]

Or maybe their just protecting their home from terrorist attack.How does taking part in the war in Iraq accomplish that again? On the contrary, it's the kind of behavior that creates terrorism.

Militant Islamists etc would have much less support and sympathies was it not for imperialism, they have pretty much formed in their current form as a reaction to it actually.

Also I'm sure that was the turnout of recruits low enough to force the imperialists to use conscription again (as in the Vietnam war), people would be tad more sympathetic towards the troops.


"Unless you leave, we're going to file an injunction with the union...and then go back to killing gays and pretty girls!"Nope, I don't support militant islamists, I oppose them as much as I do the imperialists. Neither would they have gained any significant power in Iraq had it not been for the US invasion -- secularism was quite well-established before that.


LoL you make it sound like workers and the lower classes are the ones who oppose violence.I'm not saying that they do, but that they should. What I'm saying is that it's in their interests to oppose violence against workers of other nations -- when they could gain so much more by uniting with them in internationalist solidarity instead.


Let me ask, is there a time when war is justified? Class war is justified, as is defending a successful revolution against reactionary aggression. Same goes for the military support of one country's working class offered to that of another for that purpose -- and generally to workers who struggle for progress.

[Plagueround]

Uhhh...ok. Avoid the hard question.

If you pay taxes, you support the troops and every action our govt undertakes.

If you don't, you go to jail. You're also a revolutionary, though. Nobody said it'd be easy.

So, obvioulsy, either you support the troops or you found a way to avoid the IRS, which is next to impossible.

A certain unavoidable participation in the system is needed if one wishes to completely transform it. It is not our fault that our money is spent on beating other countries into submission. That strawman is about as tiring as the one about starting our own isolated commune.

[JimmyJazz]

\That strawman is about as tiring as the one about starting our own isolated commune.

Especially since it's already been brought up in this thread.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How does taking part in the war in Iraq accomplish that again? On the contrary, it's the kind of behavior that creates terrorism.

Militant Islamists etc would have much less support and sympathies was it not for imperialism, they have pretty much formed in their current form as a reaction to it actually.

First, yes, it's obvious that the war in Iraq was a mistake, from either the "It's Wrong to Invade" position, or the position of viewing US strategic interests.

Seondly, while terrorism was the immediate reaction following the invasion, it's clear that the Iraqi populace has grown to support the US/Iraqi Government against the insurgents. Whether this be with the Sons of Iraq Sunni movement, or the more Shia-based Iraq army, cooperation has become more apparent.


Also I'm sure that was the turnout of recruits low enough to force the imperialists to use conscription again (as in the Vietnam war), people would be tad more sympathetic towards the troops.

If there was conscription for a day, you'd be able to view the anti-war demonstration in Washington from outer-space.

One thing I've never understood from Vietnam is the amount of hatred the kids who could afford to go to college felt towards the relatively poor conscripts.



Nope, I don't support militant islamists, I oppose them as much as I do the imperialists. Neither would they have gained any significant power in Iraq had it not been for the US invasion -- secularism was quite well-established before that.


Secularism was established under Hussein, yes, but this was only maintained with a robust secret police force and denial of human rights. Most Iraqis I've seen interviewed no longer fear the al-Qaeda type groups seen a year or more ago, but that Iraq's major religous parties will not be able to coexist in a system in which fear of the government does not exist.



I'm not saying that they do, but that they should. What I'm saying is that it's in their interests to oppose violence against workers of other nations -- when they could gain so much more by uniting with them in internationalist solidarity instead.


Gotchya.

It seems that workers/lower class people are the hardest to convince to be anti-war, and the easiest with which to stir up nationalism and xenophobia. Speaking generally, of course.


Class war is justified, as is defending a successful revolution against reactionary aggression. Same goes for the military support of one country's working class offered to that of another for that purpose -- and generally to workers who struggle for progress.

What about defending, or helping to defend, a non-Socialist bourgeouis nation from fascism, such as Britain in WWII. You have to admit there are degrees of nations making war and that it is necessary to defend the lesser of two evils from time to time, no?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

A certain unavoidable participation in the system is needed if one wishes to completely transform it. It is not our fault that our money is spent on beating other countries into submission. That strawman is about as tiring as the one about starting our own isolated commune.

"You must be the change you wish to see in the World."

If you participate in the system you wish to change, you're a reformer. Not a revolutionary. Unlike this guy, who stopped paying taxes to avoid supporting illegal wars:

http://www.gonomad.com/features/0709/cape-images/henry-david-thoreau.jpg




It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders.http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/images/note_a.gif (javascript:void(0);) I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, "I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico—-see if I would go"; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute (javascript:void(0);)


Resistance to Civil Government (http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/thoreau/civil/)

Now that's a revolutionary.

[Sentinel]

Seondly, while terrorism was the immediate reaction following the invasion, it's clear that the Iraqi populace has grown to support the US/Iraqi Government against the insurgents. Whether this be with the Sons of Iraq Sunni movement, or the more Shia-based Iraq army, cooperation has become more apparent.Of course there amongst the multitude of groups struggling for power are those who choose to ally with the US. Just as there are groups of socially reactionary islamists, nationalists, baathists etc.

None of these I support, but that is beside the point. Which is, that clearly the majority of Iraqis want the imperialists out..


Secularism was established under Hussein, yes, but this was only maintained with a robust secret police force and denial of human rights. Perhaps, but yet the fact remains that women, gays etc were more safe before the invasion than now. Had a coalition of progressive forces, supported by the secular and progressive workers movement of Iraq overthrown Hussein, this development could have been prevented.


Most Iraqis I've seen interviewed no longer fear the al-Qaeda type groups seen a year or more ago, but that Iraq's major religous parties will not be able to coexist in a system in which fear of the government does not exist.It's a fucked up situation indeed, spawned from a combination of the failure of Hussein to enforce secularism more through education and less by state violence, and the American invasion.


It seems that workers/lower class people are the hardest to convince to be anti-war, and the easiest with which to stir up nationalism and xenophobia. Speaking generally, of course.A more fitting description of the situation would be that because those in whose interests it is to 'stir up nationalism and xenophobia' -- the capitalists -- have access to a supreme propaganda machinery, that is just what happens. Was the US independent media backed by as powerful people as the corporate one, the general sentiment would likely be much more against imperialist wars (resembling that of most European countries).


What about defending, or helping to defend, a non-Socialist bourgeouis nation from fascism, such as Britain in WWII. You have to admit there are degrees of nations making war and that it is necessary to defend the lesser of two evils from time to time, noI do think that fascism was such a threat against the workers of the world that fighting it was necessary. Of course the US Govt decided to join that war only after being attacked by the Axis, and neither did the US participation in any way affect the outcome of the war -- other than by preventing Western Europe from being overrun by the Red Army.

[Junius]

What about defending, or helping to defend, a non-Socialist bourgeouis nation from fascism, such as Britain in WWII. You have to admit there are degrees of nations making war and that it is necessary to defend the lesser of two evils from time to time, no?

I cannot speak for anarchists, since their position on internationalism changes with their mood. As for Left Communists, we fully opposed World War Two and the participation of the working class in it. We didn't fall for the cries of 'democracy' and 'freedom' which the hypocritical allies put forth in arguing for the mobilization of the masses. Just like today we have not fallen for the cries of a war against terrorism and the similar shouts for 'freedom' and 'democracy.'

They are only so much empty words for us.

This stance, of not taking sides, does not equate with simply having a passive stance towards war mongers. On the contrary, the 'tolerant' stance of the international bourgeois gave rise to fascism, gave rise to the horrors of world war two, the holocaust. Yet the war was not fought on this context. It was fought to both defend and expand both Allied and Axis economic interests; the ability to exploit more workers. Of course, we defended self-defense - and some Italian comrades had to flee countries after defending themselves against fascists. That is quite different, however, from arguing for the mobilization of the entire working class in a bloodbath.

The Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front in Holland stated:

"How to struggle?
With Germany? No!
With England? No!
Third front, socialist proletariat!
Against national socialism and
Against national bolshevism:
International class war!"

Our comrades were killed shouting 'long live the world revolution' not the popular front slogan of 'with dignity for the freedom of the country.' As I have stated, this does not mean we take a 'passive' position. On the contrary, members of the MLLF front striked against the anti-Jewish laws in February 1941, involving hundreds of thousands of workers. Should the workers have fought, alongside their former masters in Germany, in the USSR, in Britain? Should they have supported the fascists which, quite recently, had been allied with their 'natural enemy' the Stalinists? We saw what the Stalinists did in 'support' of 'internationalism' in 1941; they employed scab workers in place of striking mining and dock workers.

No.

Clearly we saw that the enemy was simply not a choice between democracy and fascism. They were simply different sides of the same coin, the coin being the capitalist class. As stated, there were comrades whom did still advocate class struggle, whilst, as Bordiga put it, the anti-fascists were still deciding on whether to sell their country to America or the USSR. The Italian police wrote, of the Communist Left: "The only independent paper. Ideologically the most interesting and prepared. Against any compromise, defends a pure communism ... Fights against the war in all aspects: democratic, fascist or Stalinist." I think that is something to be proud of. What do you think makes the working class more fearful - militiants unwilling to compromise with any elements of the bourgeoisie, or 'militiants' ready to accept the continued exploitation of workers? What is more dangerous, an international working class unified against all oppressors or a divided working class?

These are not difficult questions, but we hear leftists give the wrong answers.

You see, our conception of fascism is entirely different from most of the left. We don't see its death in simply the defeat of Nazism or Italian fascism. We did, however, see its birth in the defeat of proletarian revolutions - where the ruling class actually fears for its survival it throws democracy out the window. We cannot defeat fascism without defeating capitalism. Hence, the concept of anti-fascism is at best, superfluous, at worst; it lends support to one ruling faction over another. With Bordiga, I agree, that the worst thing to come from fascism is: anti-fascism.

How did we advocate class struggle? In Turin in Italy there were strikes, as in Milan too. Felix Morrow, a Trotskyist, mentions, however that the factories and working class neighborhoods of Milan were bombed by the RAF. Do I really need to point out which side so-called anti-fascism was? It was apologetic for imperialism.

Today, the dichotomy between fascism and democracy is still false. Democracy is a sham which presents an illusion that workers are actually in control. We have seen that the most loyal social democrats have become the most bloodthirsty. Luxemburg and Liebknecht were murdered by right-wingers under the command of the SPD. Under democracy we have seen the most ruthless and exploitative wars. We have seen under the command of social-democracy also the most ruthless racism against immigrants.

Like Liebknecht said in the first world war: the main enemy is at home!


I do think that fascism was such a threat against the workers of the world that fighting it was necessary. Of course the US Govt decided to join that war only after being attacked by the Axis, and neither did the US participation in any way affect the outcome of the war -- other than by preventing Western Europe from being overrun by the Red Army.

It is interesting to see an anarchist defending one state over another. Especially one state which was implicit in the murder of numerous anarchists, Left-Communists and Trotskyists. Out of the three arms of the bourgeois - Allied, Axis and Stalinism - it was Stalinism which killed the most left-communists - that is quite remarkable when considering that many of our comrades were interned in (Nazi) concentration camps.

And it says a lot about whom Stalinism really serves.

[Sentinel]

It is interesting to see an anarchist defending one state over another. I'm most certainly not defending the USSR as a system, or Stalin's actions in general. What I did was to recognise the amounts of impact the participation of different factions had to the outcome of WWII, that the Red Army did the heavy duty in combating the fascist armies and would likely have defeated them even without the US joining the war.

[Junius]

You:


I do think that fascism was such a threat against the workers of the world that fighting it was necessary.

Hence, you support the slaughter of workers in defense or in furtherance of their 'homeland' (i.e. their ruling class).

Correct?


What I did was to recognise the amounts of impact the participation of different factions had to the outcome of WWII, that the Red Army did the heavy duty in combating the fascist armies and would likely have defeated them even without the US joining the war.

This is a military point, not a political point.

[Plagueround]

"You must be the change you wish to see in the World."

If you participate in the system you wish to change, you're a reformer. Not a revolutionary. Unlike this guy, who stopped paying taxes to avoid supporting illegal wars:




Hmmm...continue paying taxes while being able to remain politically active, organize communities and unions, or sit in jail and wait around for those on the outside to rescue me...yeah, that must make me a reformist. :rolleyes:
Besides, as our current system also uses taxes to fund things I do think are important, I have no objection to taxation, only the usage. By all means, give me another strawman to burn.

[Wanted Man]

Well, it's not exactly like WWI, where soldiers were executed on the spot if they didn't kill people. Of course, they aren't at complete liberty either. So no, I don't "support the troops". It's a racist sentiment, because it implies that the lives of "our boys" (they're not my "boys" just because they happen to be born in the same imperialist country) have more value than those of the thousands of Afghans they've killed.

The war should be ended, but not purely for the sake of the 17 Dutch soldiers that have been killed so far, but because it's an imperialist war that has killed thousands (you know, like 9/11, the worst crime in the history of mankind, according to the chauvinists...).

Of course, it's not easy to explain that position to people who still have patriotic illusions. It reminds me of something in class a couple weeks ago (I study Journalism). This girl knows some people who were stationed in Afghanistan, or their families. So for class, she wanted to write an article to show that the poor troops are offended by the "lack of support" at home (basically, the same "support the troops, bring them home" crap, plus some people who have the audacity to suggest that innocent Afghans are dying), and in the media (which is bullshit, the media often speak of "our boys", gleefully show MoD-approved combat footage and only a few unembedded reporters really question the war). The teacher warned her not to just make it a pro-war cheerleading story, but of course, that's exactly what it became.

[Sentinel]

Hence, you support the slaughter of workers in defense or in furtherance of their 'homeland' (i.e. their ruling class).

Correct?No, my point was only that it was in the interest of workers that fascism was defeated. I would likely have joined that struggle voluntarily -- although rather as a member of some libertarian socialist resistance movement, than the Red Army.

I am deeply critical of Stalin and the Soviet govt at that time, and am aware that they (much like the US) didn't join the 'allied cause' before being attacked by the Axis either -- and that before that they had a non-agression pact and cordial relations with the fash scum. But once they were involuntarily drawn into the conflict, without the efforts of the USSR army Europe would probably be fascist today.

And yes, I think the industrial genocide committed by German fascism was imo worse than Stalins despotism and purges, even though those were despicable as well.


This is a military point, not a political point.Well yeah, I only threw that in for all the possible US patriots here in the OI forum who might be under the impression that the D-Day was the turning point of the war or something..

[Junius]

Hi,


No, my point was only that it was in the interest of workers that fascism was defeated.

So...you argue for the Allied war effort.

I am sorry, but you are being quite unclear.


I would likely have joined that struggle voluntarily -- although rather as a member of some libertarian socialist resistance movement, than the Red Army.

I think you miss the point (completely).

It doesn't matter whether you wave a red flag, or fight an opposing nation on 'anarchist' principles.

The point is, that you are defending one ruling class against another, whilst butchering another's working class. The only real anti-fascism was complete class struggle.


I am deeply critical of Stalin and the Soviet govt at that time, and am aware that they (much like the US) didn't join the 'allied cause' before being attacked by the Axis either -- and that before that they had a non-agression pact and cordial relations with the fash scum. But once they were involuntarily drawn into the conflict, without the efforts of the USSR army Europe would probably be fascist today.

Concepts of just wars are best suited for moral philosophers and 'what-if' scenarios suited for prophets.

We have seen today, that even the smallest nations are engaged in imperialist endeavors.

In World War One we saw that the Social Democrats defend Germany's involvement on the pretext of the self-determination of a nation; a war that killed millions of Germany's working class.

We are concerned with whom this war benefits and whom it damages. There is absolutely no doubt that World War Two had a horrific effect on the working class - not only by sentencing millions to the trenches, but by calling forth cooperation with the bourgeoisie and putting aside the class war.


Well yeah, I only threw that in for all the possible US patriots here in the OI forum who might be under the impression that the D-Day was the turning point of the war or something..

It meant that another nation was going to enter the blood bath.

[Sentinel]

Listen, I see where you come from but I disagree. I do think that the lesser evil can be supported in extreme occasions, such as the threat of global fascism during WWII (WWI on the other hand was a pure inter-imperialist conflict with no justification whatsoever).

But even so I too in principle generally oppose any wars not directly decided upon and lead by the workers. I don't however, necessarily disagree with (all) the results of their outcomes -- such as the defeat of fascism.

I don't generally support national liberation movements either, but I can't see the issue as black and white as left communists and most anarchist do. In situations where such movements also have socialist and socially progressive tendencies compared to the system they're fighting, I'm however not opposed to them either.

While I of course vehemently oppose those who support reactionary ones in the name of 'anti-imperialism' or whatever.

Conclusively, I'm a little torn on the national liberation issue as well as the support of the actions of the USSR in WWII (which in my case is far from uncritical), but leaning towards a negative opinion.

[Junius]

I do think that the lesser evil can be supported in extreme occasions, such as the threat of global fascism during WWII

And this is where your boat sinks.

On what definition do you claim that the Germany was the greater evil? Certainly, we both agree that the Holocaust was a disgusting atrocity, unrivaled in history perhaps.

But that was not what the war was fought over.

I think it was just as conceivable for some to argue that Germany was the lesser evil - Britain was, at the time, the most globally dominant imperialist regime (Germany having most of its foreign land confiscated after WW1). It was the British Empire, after all. But arguing over which ruling class is worst is a pretense for the justification that you should support another.


But even so I too in principle generally oppose any wars not directly decided upon and lead by the workers.

Workers democratically agreeing on their mass suicide is not much better either.


(WWI on the other hand was a pure inter-imperialist conflict with no justification whatsoever).

Yet the social-democrats put forth the same arguments as the Stalinists: 'we are defending ourselves!'


I don't generally support national liberation movements either, but I can't see the issue as black and white as left communists and most anarchist do.

Left Communists do support national liberation movements in circumstances.

The difference is, circumstances change. Quite considerably since 1864.


In situations where such movements also have socialist and socially progressive tendencies, I'm not however not opposed to them either.

A war against Iran, which put aside the theocratic nature of the state, outlawed discrimination against homosexuality, and other socially retrogressive acts, would be considered 'socially progressive.'

But you wouldn't support such a war, would you?

[Sentinel]

But you wouldn't support such a war, would you?If that was the only purpose of that war I might (as would the progressives of Iran) -- but of course it wouldn't be. It's main purpose would be to seize the Iranian natural resources for the global capitalist class.

It's an interesting question though. If I actually lived in Iraq, I would likely wish for anyone to overthrow the mullahs and implement a secular order.

[Junius]

If that was the only purpose of that war I might (as would the progressives of Iran) -- but of course it wouldn't be. It's main purpose would be to seize the Iranian natural resources for the multinational corporations.

Just as the argument that the self-defense of a nation, or the defense of democracy, or the argument for anti-fascism is only a smoke-screen for the real efforts of the ruling classes. (And indeed, after WW2 we saw how the USSR ruthlessly cheated its occupied countries, as did the USA in Japan, for example, and the Marshall Plan).


It's an interesting question though. If I actually lived in Iraq, I would likely wish for anyone to overthrow the mullahs and implement a secular order.

I'm assuming you mean Iran.

Nevertheless, I don't see how a country controlled by fundamentalist Muslim capitalists is to be significantly different from a country controlled by secular capitalists.

We would argue that neither ruling class in in our interests, and that class struggle is the only true step to emancipation - not fighting one boss to replace it for another.

As an anarchist, I thought you would agree.

[Sentinel]

Nevertheless, I don't see how a country controlled by fundamentalist Muslim capitalists is to be significantly different from a country controlled by secular capitalists.Well it would depend on the secular capitalists, of course. But religious fundamentalist despotism simply is in many ways a worse form of society than secular bourgeois 'democracy'.

Not only directly, for the minorities who the fundies are bigoted against and summarily execute for no rational reason whatsover, but also for the working class as a whole to organise in, due to the extremely heavy repression.


We would argue that neither ruling class in in our interests, and that class struggle is the only true step to emancipation - not fighting one boss to replace it for another.I do agree with that, but I also realise that the ideal society isn't always directly within reach, and that progress sometimes unfortunately comes in small steps.


As an anarchist, I thought you would agree.I am for a revolution against both state and capital, whenever that is a realistic possibility. Otherwise I do support the struggle of the less oppressive and more progressive of two oppressors -- to get rid of the one that is worse, not against the workers.


I'm assuming you mean Iran.Yepp, I'm tired -- sorry. :blushing:

[Junius]

Well it would depend on the secular capitalists, of course. But religious fundamentalist despotism simply is in many ways a worse form of society than secular bourgeois democracy.

Not only directly, for the minorities who the fundies are bigoted against and summarily execute for no rational reason whatsover, but also for the working class to organise in due to the extremely heavy repression.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you.

The question is, whether putting a 'secular bourgeoisie' government would be a progressive step versus a working class revolution.

This is a matter of whether you consider capitalism to be progressive anymore - I don't.

I think class war, in Iran, and elsewhere, is not only feasible, but should be our main priority - the time of allying with bourgeoisie movements against feudal aristocracy (which are now non-existent) is (long) past.

Perhaps we should leave it there. Nice debating with you.

[Sentinel]

Nice debating with you.

Thanks, and agreed. It's a difficult topic.

[Bud Struggle]

Sentinel and Chinese (I guess) Guy--that was a great conversation. Really informative. Thanks.

[don]

As I wrote in my intro, I joined and over time realized the errors of my way. Plus, the current war was not taking place when I was in. I don’t see the relevance of the comment, “Didn't they love you enough? Just because you couldn't make any friends don't piss on those that could,” to the discussion.

At any rate, you’re right about what you wrote. I would disagree that those who got them to join where more clever. I would characterize it as being “more desperate;” desperate to meet their quota. Regardless, the point is that once they’re in, and their eyes are opened to the reality of what is happening, they could resist. Again, these people do not fight for me or represent me.

[Bud Struggle]

As I wrote in my intro, I joined and over time realized the errors of my way. Plus, the current war was not taking place when I was in. I don’t see the relevance of the comment, “Didn't they love you enough? Just because you couldn't make any friends don't piss on those that could,” to the discussion.

At any rate, you’re right about what you wrote. I would disagree that those who got them to join where more clever. I would characterize it as being “more desperate;” desperate to meet their quota. Regardless, the point is that once they’re in, and their eyes are opened to the reality of what is happening, they could resist. Again, these people do not fight for me or represent me.

I didn't read your intro--sorry about my nastyness.

[Labor Shall Rule]

...but not the war*."

How do you react when people say this? Is it a legitimate statement? In my opinion, it is not. When you support the soldiers of the imperialist aggressor you are still supporting the imperialist war.

Thoughts?

*Iraq War

I have friends who were in the national guard, that were recently deployed to serve in Iraq—it's hard for me to say 'fuck the troops' when it hits so close to home. The 'anti-war' work that I've done was entirely based on getting petitions signed, picketing the state congress building, and making phone calls, to prevent the mobilization of my bud's to those downtrodden nations.

But as a revolutionary Marxist, I support national self-determination—Iraq is is dominated so that the oil sector can be restructured in America's favor and so that rapid shifts and transfers of capital can enter their own soil, and this is a social arrangement that abandons them into a state of exploitative bestiality. The defeat of the imperialist forces (i.e. by killing their infantry and the war equipment that serves it) is what all progressive-minded peoples should be calling for.

But the class struggle doesn't just happen in the factories, it happens in the barracks. It's important to not alienate, and encourage, anti-war troops to voice their opposition to the oversea occupation(s).


RGacky: please don't quote me again without attribution.

TomK, American Patriot

You are talking like you actually benefit from the maintenance of U.S. imperialism - most of your exorbitant taxes go to fund the production of Apaches that are used to destroy Palestinian refugee camps, or to developing new technology (from satellites that provide galactic surveillance of enemy positions, to new intrinsic firearms that have cameras that can see around corners), and to provide amenities to troops in bases from all corners of the globe.

[JimmyJazz]

I have friends who were in the national guard, that were recently deployed to serve in Iraq—it's hard for me to say 'fuck the troops' when it hits so close to home.

I just want to point out that I do too, and one of them, who I grew up with, was killed there in 2005. But what he was doing at the time of his death was evil, doesn't matter if I hung out with him in junior high or not.


But the class struggle doesn't just happen in the factories, it happens in the barracks. It's important to not alienate, and encourage, anti-war troops to voice their opposition to the oversea occupation(s).

I agree that this is important.

[RGacky3]

The fact that they don't realise what they are doing doesn't make it undone.

No, but it does'nt mean you can place the blame on them, you place the blame on the system that makes these things happen.


First after they realise the very basic fact that it's not OK to murder other workers to get your education paid for you and grow a class consciousness, can any further improvement occur. Sorry.


Its not ok to murder ANYONE, and believe me your not going to get anywere by going around putting people down and judging them, I'm against war, against the military and I think your kind of an asshole, I can imagen you trying to win over a veteran.

As far as their concerned they are doing something they have to do. BTW, I hope you feel the same way about gangmembers and other criminals, because morally its the same thing.


communists must be one with the working class, and thus we must always tell the workers the truth. We aren't to lie to the workers, ever.


Yes I agree, and being one with the working class does not mean judging them and putting them down and blaiming them for something they arn't the blaim for, and your not going to be One with the working class by going around calling them traitors.


It's pretty fucking rich to use that argument in defense of mercenaries, people who kill for a wage and for an education, you know.

Its not an argument, I'm telling you to have empathy, to try and look at it from their situation. If you can't do that you gonna be a really really bad organizer. Its not the workers job to be heros and the such, they are just trying to get by, and if that means joining the army, and doing something which is wrong, but in their eyes they are serving a greater good, the answer is not being a dickhead to them and treating them like they just wanna go out there and kill people, the anwer is to have empathy, understand their reasons for doing it, seeing the situation they are in to do it, looking at things form their viewpoint.

If you can't do that then you have no place judging anyone, and if you can do that your not gonna judge anyone.

believe me the working class DOES NOT need judgemental assholes putting them down without even trying to understand where they are comming from.

Its a shame that sometimes leftists can empathise with the man blowing himself up in Isreal out of despiration, because he has no hope, and out of the bitterness he has of his people being humilitated, as they should empathise with him. But they cannot empathise with the young man with few options that picks up a gun for what he is told and believed his whole life to be something noble, what he thinks is protecting his homeland, so he can get an education and move ahead.

As communists your right, out job is to be one with the working class (most of us are IN the working class), and that means understanding and having empathy.

[Sentinel]

No, but it does'nt mean you can place the blame on themWell I evidently disagree, if someone is going to join up in the imperialist military I will call him out on that, explain why it isn't acceptable -- which is what I've done here.

Patting them on their backs and trying to justify what they are doing -- either by claiming that they 'have to do it' when they don't, or by declaring them as idiots who don't know better -- won't accomplish shit, except more innocent people dead.

I can imagine that many are doubtful about their decision to join the army. What they don't need at that moment is a 'leftist' saying that it's 'OK' and finding justifications to go through with it for them.


As far as their concerned they are doing something they have to do.As I have explained, I would have sympathy with those joining up to survive, then it's a situation aking to conscription. But once again, this does not include those do it to get a better education etc.

They don't 'have to' buy that with the blood of workers overseas.


BTW, I hope you feel the same way about gangmembers and other criminals, because morally its the same thing.That depends on your definition of 'other criminals', of course, as the current laws imposed by the bourgeois states are far from just. But naturally I'm opposed to murderers, robbers, rapists etc whether they have state sanction for their actions or not.

Actually you hit the nail on the head here, why should we 'understand and have empathy' for reactionary actions against other workers just because they are conducted by 'our boys' against the 'foreigners' abroad but condemn those who murder at home? It makes no sense.


your not going to be One with the working class by going around calling them traitors. If someone becomes a mercenary and murders workers for an education or other 'goodies' thrown to them by the class enemy, they exclude themselves from class solidarity. This must if possible be prevented before it happens, but is never to be apologised for once it does, like you are doing. It's like scabbing, but worse.

The whole point here is that we never should have 'understanding and empathy' for crimes against workers, just because they are of a different nationality.

[Dejavu]

I'm most certainly not defending the USSR as a system, or Stalin's actions in general. What I did was to recognise the amounts of impact the participation of different factions had to the outcome of WWII, that the Red Army did the heavy duty in combating the fascist armies and would likely have defeated them even without the US joining the war.


Perhaps. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia would have probably come to a stalemate obliterating most of eachother's resources. In the end , this probably would have been better for the world but the potential casualities could never be known.

The Allied invasion, more specifically, the U.S. involvement, diverted enough of Germany's resources to the Western front which might have given the Soviets some time to regroup. Ultimately, I don't know if it achieved much since the Allies sold out half of Europe in the end to another tyranny.

This is an interesting thought by you though.

[RGacky3]

Patting them on their backs and trying to justify what they are doing -- either by claiming that they 'have to do it' when they don't, or by declaring them as idiots who don't know better -- won't accomplish shit, except more innocent people dead.


I'm not saying pat them on their back, I'm saying don't judge them, hate the game, not the player.

'Calling them out' is'nt the way to go, call out the people starting wars.


Actually you hit the nail on the head here, why should we 'understand and have empathy' for reactionary actions against other workers just because they are conducted by 'our boys' against the 'foreigners' abroad but condemn those who murder at home? It makes no sense.

I comdemn both crime (as in robbing poor people for your own gain) and war, but I don' go around judging criminals or soldeirs morally. Because I can't say that if I was in their situation, knowing what they know, I woudl'nt do the same.

Calling them out does'nt teach them, it does'nt empower them, what it does is make it look like your trying to humiliate them, judge them, and condemn them. Which is not something you should be doing.


If someone becomes a mercenary and murders workers for an education or other 'goodies' thrown to them by the class enemy, they exclude themselves from class solidarity. This must if possible be prevented before it happens, but is never to be apologised for once it does, like you are doing. It's like scabbing, but worse.

No its not, because in their minds they are fighting terrorism, in their minds they are doing something good, and helping themselves in the process. A SCAB, knows exactly what he's doing, that being said, putting scabs down or attackign them with words won't win them over, trying to win them over by showing how it will benefit them will.

To me any leftist that goes around condemning and judging people without having empathy will not succede in any organizing.

When veterans from vietnam came back and had people yelling "baby killer" at them, I guarantee you they did'nt want anything to do with those people. War is hell as it is, for both sides, and both sides desearve empathy (I'm of caorse talking about the soldiers), and should be won over, not condemned and judged like we are some kind of leftist pope or whatever.

Your not superior to anyone, dispite what you might think, and you ahve no place to go around judging and condemning people, we are fighting against systems, and structures, not people.

[Sentinel]

'Calling them out' is'nt the way to go, call out the people starting wars.

It's not like these two are mutually exclusive as I see it?


Calling them out does'nt teach them

I vehemently disagree with this. Calling a person out for doing something that is wrong is a way more effective start in teaching them, than approving of their actions.



When veterans from vietnam came back and had people yelling "baby killer" at them, I guarantee you they did'nt want anything to do with those people.


I'm, on the contrary, sure that it got a few of them thinking and participating in the antiwar movement. After all, they had been in the war and knew the people accusing them were right.

Ever read Born the 4th of July by Ron Kovic? :)

But there's a difference between those who took part in the Vietnam war and those who go to Iraq: many were conscripted against their will. Those who go to Iraq all volunteer, and that's quite a different story.




Your not superior to anyone, dispite what you might think, and you ahve no place to go around judging and condemning people,

I am obviously not superior to anyone but my opinion in this matter is -- that joining in the US Imperialist military is stupid and counterproductive to global class struggle is the truth and can in debate be proven so.

I know that Iraqi workers are killed due to these people joining up. And in my opinion if one knows the truth it is their responsibility, duty to inform their comrades.

Just like it's our duty to fiercely condemn the act of joining up and participating in imperialist wars.



we are fighting against systems, and structures, not people.


These systems and structures, the capitalist class, consist of real people too.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

[/left]

Hmmm...continue paying taxes while being able to remain politically active, organize communities and unions, or sit in jail and wait around for those on the outside to rescue me...yeah, that must make me a reformist. :rolleyes:

Nothing wrong with being a reformist, I didn't mean it as an insult. Thousands of people have organized sit-ins, unions, even strikes. If they were revolutionaries we've had a non-stop revolution.

Anyway, a revolutionary does not have to start a war, but he does have to declare it against the system, and this includes breaking it down by its own rules. The reason pot isn't legal is because nobody is willing to go to jail for it by choice. If only 1% of users decided to get arrested for it one day, it'd be legal within the week. And I would call them revolutionaries for the cause.


Besides, as our current system also uses taxes to fund things I do think are important, I have no objection to taxation, only the usage.

And I agree.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Perhaps. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia would have probably come to a stalemate obliterating most of eachother's resources. In the end , this probably would have been better for the world but the potential casualities could never be known.

The Allied invasion, more specifically, the U.S. involvement, diverted enough of Germany's resources to the Western front which might have given the Soviets some time to regroup. Ultimately, I don't know if it achieved much since the Allies sold out half of Europe in the end to another tyranny.

This is an interesting thought by you though.

I agree with Sentinel. Yes, the American role was very important, but cannot be compared with the gargantuan task the Soviet Union had.

In other words, On June 6, 1944, there were 18 German Divisions between Normandy and Germany.

Hitler sent over 200 divisions into the USSR. And all of them were ground into meat.

[cop an Attitude]

Its funny, youm normally hear democrats saying that. there is no diffrence in supporting the men in service and the actions they do (ie war). to me, its the same thing and normally people that say this would support army if it wasnt for the Iraq war. If you dont support the troops then you dont support the actions of the US army. If you "support the troops but not the war" you realy just dont agree with the current war but you would agree with other actions, like WW2. I have serveral friends in the military right now and i can safly say i dont support their actions. I hope that no harm would come to them but they made the wrong choice. I also understand that the army inlists many lower class citizens but so much blind nationalism is breed into their being that i doubt a large amount would defect in a revloution. Idk i am really just going off of personal experence but i see them as an enemy rather than a confused ally.

[Le Libérer]

I have serveral friends in the military right now and i can safly say i dont support their actions. I feel you, I broke up with my BF when he joined.

I dont understand, "Support the troops" whether you believe in war or not. It usually entails the young poor killing other young and poor. Its evident that being a soldier means you are willing to kill or to die for the ruling class. They are the ones with real freedom.
To quote Redstar2000 in a thread simuliar to this one:

Do not kid yourself that you will be of any "use" to us as a soldier...you will be part of the enemy. * Your death will provoke indifference or joy in us, depending on the circumstances. * It's not beyond the realm of possibility that you could find yourself shooting at unarmed civilians...including us.

[Dejavu]

I agree with Sentinel. Yes, the American role was very important, but cannot be compared with the gargantuan task the Soviet Union had.

In other words, On June 6, 1944, there were 18 German Divisions between Normandy and Germany.

Hitler sent over 200 divisions into the USSR. And all of them were ground into meat.

Russia's natural environment saved it from a Nazi takeover. The Russians were adept to fighting in extreme conditions while the Nazis were more used to a more predicatable environment. Had Hitler invaded in a different season, Moscow would've fell but I don't think it could've been held in the long run. Soviets would've used hit and run tactics to weaken the war machine ( much like insurgents in Iraq do today and did in Afganistan against the USSR.) When Stalin declared his alliance with the Allies he also received a lot of supplies from the U.S. The U.S. also kept Japan busy.

Stalin made the pact with Hitler in 1939 and the people of Eastern Europe paid for it.

And I don't think the Russian grinded the Germans into meat. If you look at proportionate losses they are staggering for the Soviets.

[Dejavu]

I feel you, I broke up with my BF when he joined.

I dont understand, "Support the troops" whether you believe in war or not. It usually entails the young poor killing other young and poor. Its evident that being a soldier means you are willing to kill or to die for the ruling class. They are the ones with real freedom.
To quote Redstar2000 in a thread simuliar to this one:


Nice, so you're single. :D

[Module]

I don’t think Sentinel is saying he ‘hates’ anyone, but the simple fact of the matter is that people in the army, just like people in the police force who may’ve come from working class backgrounds, or people from working class backgrounds who start businesses .. and so on .. who make decisions opposed to working class interests should not be treated as if their decisions are even remotely valid or reasonable.
I have never, even before I was calling myself a ‘socialist’, considered joining the army, nor the police force, just another form of employment and I honestly don’t believe that anybody else, at least in Australia, considers it just another form of employment, either. Regardless;

I think that every individual, no matter what class they come from, should be held accountable for their actions and not have those actions ‘pardoned’ due to their individual opinions or beliefs. The idea that we, as socialists, should ‘support’ (volunteering) troops because they believe that they have to serve their country, and protect it from evil foreigners really is liberal bullshit. I’m sure there are plenty of pro-capitalists out there who genuinely believe that the capitalist system is overall good for everybody. Everybody, pretty much, has ‘good intentions’ most of the time.
What is important is the material effect of people’s actions, whether of the working or capitalist class.
The simple fact of the matter is that the actions of those people who join the army are opposed to the interests of the working class, and they should be called out on that. As Sentinel said, calling somebody out on their actions is absolutely necessary to make them learn the 'error of their ways'.

[Dejavu]

I don’t think Sentinel is saying he ‘hates’ anyone, but the simple fact of the matter is that people in the army, just like people in the police force who may’ve come from working class backgrounds, or people from working class backgrounds who start businesses .. and so on .. who make decisions opposed to working class interests should not be treated as if their decisions are even remotely valid or reasonable.
I have never, even before I was calling myself a ‘socialist’, considered joining the army, nor the police force, just another form of employment and I honestly don’t believe that anybody else, at least in Australia, considers it just another form of employment, either. Regardless;

I think that every individual, no matter what class they come from, should be held accountable for their actions and not have those actions ‘pardoned’ due to their individual opinions or beliefs. The idea that we, as socialists, should ‘support’ (volunteering) troops because they believe that they have to serve their country, and protect it from evil foreigners really is liberal bullshit. I’m sure there are plenty of pro-capitalists out there who genuinely believe that the capitalist system is overall good for everybody. Everybody, pretty much, has ‘good intentions’ most of the time.
What is important is the material effect of people’s actions, whether of the working or capitalist class.
The simple fact of the matter is that the actions of those people who join the army are opposed to the interests of the working class, and they should be called out on that. As Sentinel said, calling somebody out on their actions is absolutely necessary to make them learn the 'error of their ways'.

Well yeah , all that and they....well you know... actually murder people. Just thought I'd throw that in there , I might be an important consideration.:thumbup1:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Russia's natural environment saved it from a Nazi takeover. The Russians were adept to fighting in extreme conditions while the Nazis were more used to a more predicatable environment. Had Hitler invaded in a different season, Moscow would've fell but I don't think it could've been held in the long run. Soviets would've used hit and run tactics to weaken the war machine ( much like insurgents in Iraq do today and did in Afganistan against the USSR.) When Stalin declared his alliance with the Allies he also received a lot of supplies from the U.S. The U.S. also kept Japan busy.

First, I didn't mean to suggest that the US wasn't important during the conflict. Of course it played a vital role, and easily got the most bang for the buck after the war. In this case, strategic position and business gained compared to number of lives lost. We were the real victors of the war, not the Soviets. This could be in a thread to itself; The US got so much from WWII. We had Capital, none of our infrastructure/cities/farmland/industries were damaged (compared to rampant devastation in the rest of the civilized world), and had West Germany/Japan, two incredible workshops, under our control. Along with the entire West, pretty much, under our domination.

Now, unfortunately, we rebuilt both Japan and Western Europe while our infrastructure degraded...but oh well.

Second, yeah, I think that if Hitler hadn't invaded Yugoslavia they could have gone all the way before winter hit. It would have been extremely difficult, but I think Germany could have done it. Were it not for Hitler's stupidity, manifested especially at Stalingrad, Germany could have fought longer. I doubt they could have 'won,' though.

Thank God they made those mistakes.


Stalin made the pact with Hitler in 1939 and the people of Eastern Europe paid for it.

Yep.


And I don't think the Russian grinded the Germans into meat. If you look at proportionate losses they are staggering for the Soviets.

No doubt. I didn't mean it was a good, well thought out victory, just that despite all the fighting the Germans did, they simply couldn't win the vast numbers game. The Soviets, being faced with extinction, could take the millions of losses the Germans simply couldn't.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well yeah , all that and they....well you know... actually murder people. Just thought I'd throw that in there , I might be an important consideration.:thumbup1:

And to fund someone to commit murder, is that not also a crime?

[Dejavu]

And to fund someone to commit murder, is that not also a crime?

Sure. If a person voluntarily and knowingly participates in paying off a hit man then they are morally culpable.

[RGacky3]

It's not like these two are mutually exclusive as I see it?

As mutually exclusive as workers and Capitalists are.


I vehemently disagree with this. Calling a person out for doing something that is wrong is a way more effective start in teaching them, than approving of their actions.


Conversation goes like this.
"YOUR A MURDERER, and a mercinary and a traitor to your class, your a horrible human being, but you can change your ways."

Its like those anti-gay christian freaks that stand out side solder funerals with signs saying "God Hates Soldiers" Do you think they are changing anyones minds?


I'm, on the contrary, sure that it got a few of them thinking and participating in the antiwar movement. After all, they had been in the war and knew the people accusing them were right.

I seriously doubt that the ones that joined the antiwar movement were the ones that were spat at and put down and condemned by the antiwar movement. But if I'm wrong do you have any examples?


I am obviously not superior to anyone but my opinion in this matter is -- that joining in the US Imperialist military is stupid and counterproductive to global class struggle is the truth and can in debate be proven so.

I agree with you, thats not the issue, the issue is your condemning and judging of people, who don't see the world that way because they have no way of knowing, how can you hold a man accountable for that, he has no was of knowing otherwise.

Most of these people don't have a class-consiences and why should they? They have no reason to be loyal to their class, they don't know any reason, its bashed into their heads that they have to lookout for themselves. You can't judge people based on the rediculous idea that everyone should be class-consciouse just automatically, because thats not the case.

Also its not JUST class, killing is wrong period, be the killed workers or not.


These systems and structures, the capitalist class, consist of real people too.

Yeah, but these people are acting in the way the system works, the way they are required to in order to survive in the system. Until you understand that you cannot understand Capitalism, and Imperialism, its not the people that are evil, its the system, if it was the people we could just replace the people with good people, the truth is, the system encourages certain actions and that system is what we should be fighting against.

You cannot assume that everyone has the same viewpoint as we do, and act the way they do out of evil, people don't, most people have the viewpoint that is stuffed down their throat, and the viewpoint that the system encourages, you have to understand taht viewpoint, and not judge people because of that, and try and help them see it from our standpoint, the full standpoint.

Too many leftists lack empathy, and thats probably the biggest quality a leftist needs.

We need to give people a reason to go against the system, not condemn them for going along with it, when it benefits them and they dont' see it as wrong, we should be showing theme benefits of going against it, and showing it for waht it really is. Not condemning them as poeple. Considering what they know, and what understand, they are acting rationally. Its our job to show them another way, NOT CONDEMN them, like freaking priests.

[Sentinel]

Conversation goes like this.
"YOUR A MURDERER, and a mercinary and a traitor to your class, your a horrible human being, but you can change your ways."Yes, I believe in honesty.


Its like those anti-gay christian freaks that stand out side solder funerals with signs saying "God Hates Soldiers" Do you think they are changing anyones minds?At the funeral? Not likely. Of some other psychopath bent towards their pov, maybe.

Debating isn't always about converting the one you are talking to (you for instance will not give up your liberal views whatever I say, I'm convinced). It's as much directed to the uninvolved bystanders, who can objectively see whose point is closer to the truth.

Obviously going to gloat at a funeral is a shit tactic in any case.. :rolleyes:


I seriously doubt that the ones that joined the antiwar movement were the ones that were spat at and put down and condemned by the antiwar movement. But if I'm wrong do you have any examples?Well I just threw out Ron Kovic -- who was a 'patriot' and enthusiastic about the war to begin with. I don't live in the US so I can't come up with more, but doubtlessly many other sensible war veterans when confronted thought about it, and realised the war had been wrong.


Too many leftists lack empathy, and thats probably the biggest quality a leftist needs.

No, we don't need liberal empathy of the kind which makes us tell those who join the imperialist miltary that it's ok.


Its our job to show them another way, NOT CONDEMN them, like freaking priests.

It's not about condemning people, but their actions. If one shoots workers for an education they are class traitor. If they cease with it and realise their errors, they no longer are.

I'm not for condemning anyone for life for mistakes they have made, but for confronting them openly and fiercely when they do. Otherwise they'll never stop.

[cop an Attitude]

well, since they work for me, i support them, but i will never hesitate to critiquize them, or to compliment them when they are doing good.

Peoples here seem to freak out when we start talking about the army, all they see is imperialism, hegemony etc. But even in a communist country this kind of operation and action would happen. If america where communist, you can be sure they are gonna intervene. Political and economical system never stopped that kind of behavior, from the antiquity to the cold war, to today.

countries will always try to enlarge their spheres of influence, always.

what if the military was only used for defensive measures. That the military was factonized to communites and can only organize under extreme condtions.

[RGacky3]

No, we don't need liberal empathy of the kind which makes us tell those who join the imperialist miltary that it's ok.

You can't look at things black and white all the time, because its not black and white. If you don't have empathy, i.e. understanding the reasons poeple do things, and you judge people without that, your judging in ignorance. If your ok being in ignorance then good for you, but you'll look like a jackass.


Debating isn't always about converting the one you are talking to (you for instance will not give up your liberal views whatever I say, I'm convinced). It's as much directed to the uninvolved bystanders, who can objectively see whose point is closer to the truth.

Most likely those uninvolved bystandards are not going to stand by the guy accusing, and condemning someone who just did what he thought was the right thing to do, generally people have a little more empathy, whether or not they agree with it.

Debating for the most part, especailly the way you intend on doing it, is pointless and will do nothing but make you look like a ranting asshole (going around condemning and accusing soldiers).


I don't live in the US so I can't come up with more, but doubtlessly many other sensible war veterans when confronted thought about it, and realised the war had been wrong.


If they were confronted, I doubt they were confronted in an aggressive accusing manner. If you think thats the right way to win people over, being aggressing and accusing, then you know nothing about human nature, people are not drawn to people who condemn and accuse without even trying to understand the other persons viewpoint or motives (be them wrong or not).


It's not about condemning people, but their actions. If one shoots workers for an education they are class traitor. If they cease with it and realise their errors, they no longer are.

I'm not for condemning anyone for life for mistakes they have made, but for confronting them openly and fiercely when they do. Otherwise they'll never stop.

I am amazed that you think confronting them oepnly and fiercly will win them over, it does'nt. And yes you are condemning them for their mistakes.

They are not class traitors, because they wern't allied to a class to begin with, most of them don't even understand class, so they can't be class traitors.

Your like these idiots that blaim hispanic immigrants for loosing their jobs, rather than looking for the reason why these immigrants have to cross the border to find jobs in the first place, rather than trying to understand their reasons, they just think "They broke our laws, they are bad." Thats a very stupid, ignorant, narrow sited and ultimately dangerous way of looking at things.

If you choose not to try and understand motives, and rather judge everything black and white, then so be it, but rest assured you'll not win many people over.

[JimmyJazz]

I know I've been popping in and out of this thread, but I've been following the Sentinal-RGacky3 discussion and I want to propose a compromise: our approach toward cops and soldiers should be to extend an olive branch with one hand, hoping that this will work, but to clutch a rock behind our back with the other in case it doesn't. I would say this should be probably be our literal stance when faced with individual riot cops/peace-keeping soldiers (such as were used at many Vietnam protests, like Kent State), and our figurative stance towards them as a class. But more so our figurative stance toward them as a class. They may or may not be "workers" in some proper Marxist sense, but they have historically shown the ability to be radical (see: soldiers in Russia 1905 and 1917), particularly under conditions of extreme defeat when the questioning of central executive judgment is at its highest. At the same time, we can't be naive: the alternative to them joining us is them trying to kill us. So they can't simply be treated like any other type of worker we are trying to organize.

As for drawing a moral conclusion about their culpability, who really cares? What matters is what side they come down on when the society hits the fan.

[danyboy27]

i am all on wacky side right there.
the soldiers are nothing but normal people with gun with the job to defend/obey to the governement rules and politics.

unlike what people tend to believe most soldier are not murderous fuck and actually hate stuff like civilian casuality, they would rather confront dirrectly an ennemy than having to pass thru the civilian to get them.

we can have those guy on our side with time, but it require the proper manoeuvers and the right tactics.

[Dharma]

I support that they risk their life for what they believe in. Even though they are mislead and brainwashed.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I support that they risk their life for what they believe in. Even though they are mislead and brainwashed.

What bullshit. If i got two tramps off the street and told them i would give them a two hundred quid if they had a knife fight, would you support they risk their lives?

[Bud Struggle]

What bullshit. If i got two tramps off the street and told them i would give them a two hundred quid if they had a knife fight, would you support they risk their lives?

Or it's like Communist Party members fighting for what they believed in when Capitalism was taking over the Soviet Union--oh yea. They became Capitalists instead.

[Plagueround]

Or it's like Communist Party members fighting for what they believed in when Capitalism was taking over the Soviet Union--oh yea. They became Capitalists instead.

Cute...but surely you're not suggesting they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_coup_attempt_of_1991) just sat back and gave up?

[RGacky3]

Cute...but surely you're not suggesting they (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_coup_attempt_of_1991) just sat back and gave up?

That was before the USSR fell, if anything that coup was what brought everything down, then once they realized the failed they did become Capitalists :p, hey as long as their in charge.

[Bud Struggle]

Cute...but surely you're not suggesting they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_coup_attempt_of_1991) just sat back and gave up?

Nope, not then--just a day or two after. The Communist party members became Capitalists. Who do you think the millionaires of Russia are? They are mostly Communist Party members from the old SU. Putin himself is a former KGB.

Personally, it goes along with my belief that certain people rise to power--no matter the ideology or the economic system. Come the Revolution the same guys that run General Electric will be running the factories and the other means of production. THEY will be the Communist Party. They are in a very real sense--the Vanguard. Not the theoretical Marxist Vanuard--but the one that will run the factories, feed the people one. The Pragmatic Vanguard.

One of the brilliant lessons of the Soviet Union/Russia is that nothing ever changes. You Communist may fight the Revolution, but you won't be in charge when it done. The same people that are in charge now will be in charge.

[RGacky3]

The same people that are in charge now will be in charge.

Not if you don't let anyone get in charge.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Or it's like Communist Party members fighting for what they believed in when Capitalism was taking over the Soviet Union--oh yea. They became Capitalists instead.

What instead of state capitalists ? what a jump!

[Labor Shall Rule]

Nope, not then--just a day or two after. The Communist party members became Capitalists. Who do you think the millionaires of Russia are? They are mostly Communist Party members from the old SU. Putin himself is a former KGB.

Personally, it goes along with my belief that certain people rise to power--no matter the ideology or the economic system. Come the Revolution the same guys that run General Electric will be running the factories and the other means of production. THEY will be the Communist Party. They are in a very real sense--the Vanguard. Not the theoretical Marxist Vanuard--but the one that will run the factories, feed the people one. The Pragmatic Vanguard.

One of the brilliant lessons of the Soviet Union/Russia is that nothing ever changes. You Communist may fight the Revolution, but you won't be in charge when it done. The same people that are in charge now will be in charge.

How 'intelligent' of you.

The 'bourgeois' revolutions were inevitable. The budding merchant class suffered from duties on tobacco that were four to six times it's selling price in the colonies.


Virginia certainly owed two millions sterling to Great Britain at the conclusion of the war. Some have conjectured the debt as high as three millions ... This is ascribed to the peculiarities in the tobacco trade. The advantages made by the British merchants on the tobacco consigned to them were so enormous, that they spared no means of increasing those consignments. A powerful engine for this purpose, was the giving good prices and credit, till they got him more immersed in debt than he could pay, without selling his lands or slaves. Then they reduced the prices given him for his tobacco, so that let his shipments be ever so great, and his demand of necessaries ever so economical, they never permitted him to clear off his debt. These debts had become hereditary from father to son, for many generations, so that the planters were a species of property, annexed to certain mercantile houses in London.
Jefferson sums up here, the contradictions that were imminent there. The bad harvest in the years prior to the revolution meant that British bankers did not want to loan out to American debtors any longer, and growing import duties and acts (as a result of the Four Years War) meant that conciliation simply was not possible.

The nature of class societies based on the appropriation of social surplus by a 'higher' class (such as the colonies, in the American experience) reveals not only the potentialities, but the inherent drive in the field of history towards the accomplishment of achieving a higher level of humanity by all people.

The unique character of capitalism means that periods of crisis generate a socialist movement (i.e. people consciously questioning the social parameters that govern their lives), but it does not mean it produces results (i.e. revolution). I don't think you should be ungentlemanly and ahistorically putting down the inevitability of people understanding the inherent mechanisms that capitalist production operates under though, and for that, why do you not think that 'change' can come if such conscious-minded people are faced with a challenge that will require more than just pragmatism?

[Dharma]

What bullshit. If i got two tramps off the street and told them i would give them a two hundred quid if they had a knife fight, would you support they risk their lives?

I support that they risk their lives because when they enter the forces they think they're protecting their homeland and fellow citizens, not fueling an imperialist empire..

[RGacky3]

I support that they risk their lives because when they enter the forces they think they're protecting their homeland and fellow citizens, not fueling an imperialist empire..

Thats the right way to look at it. I guarantee you, most of them, if they realized that they wre fueling an imperialist empire, and understood what that ment, would not join with the US, which is why we should'nt judge them.