Explain to me the ideology behind anti- Imperialism

[graffic]

I am not pro-intervention. I am infact anti-Imperialist to an extent however my thinking is this..

Surely if supposedly "X" dictator is killing kids and women or oppressing blacks. Shouldn't more powerful, more civilized and less brutal nations, (e.g US) have a right to intervene and stop "X" dictator killing kids?

I'm not aiming to provoke debate or propound a view, I'm just curious to understand the real thinking behind people who oppose the Iraq war and Afghan war on "anti-Imperialism ideology" grounds..

Surely It was a good thing that the US removed the evil dictator - Saddam Hussein and restored democracy in Iraq. A sweeping statement I know (which isnt true to an extent).

However suppose the US was out of Iraq and the Iraqi people were freed from an evil dictator. Would Anti-Imperialists still be against the intervention?

[GPDP]

The thing is, it's very, VERY rare that a nation "frees" a country's people from tyranny and then leaves them to determine their own destiny. One example that I recently became aware of that sort of approximates such a situation is India's invasion of what is now Bangladesh in 1978, which consequently ended a massacre in that nation. And guess what? The US sent an aircraft carrier to threaten India over it.

As for Iraq, ask yourself if what we did was worth the price. Sure, Iraq is technically a "democracy" now, but 1 million Iraqis are dead and another 2 million have fled the country. The country is in total disarray, and its government is basically our puppet.

If we wanted to, we could've easily supported genuine freedom fighters to topple Saddam Hussen instead of doing it ourselves. If we could support the contras, we sure as hell could've supported people opposed to Hussein's dictatorship. But we did not, because our interests lie not with the wishes of the Iraqi people.

I suggest you read this article by Chomsky on what he calls "humanitarian imperialism".

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18827

[graffic]

Yes, but before a bullet had even been fired there were millions of people here in the UK on the streets campaigning against the war.

I can understand looking back on the war and realizing how disastrous it was, however I don't understand the thinking behind leaving nations entirely to their own ends. Even when kids are being massacred and women raped? This ideology which Lenin and many other leading leftists support.

[Ratatosk]

The problem is, Iraq is not democratic now and the Iraqis are actually worse off then they were under Saddam (who, while no doubt a sadist ruler himself, is villified at the expense of other, equally if not more brutal rulers that however serve Western interests).

[graffic]

Yeah I'm familiar with Chomskys work.

Very enlightening and often a lot of it is true. He tends to be over pessimistic about the US though, his last piece of work "Failed States" tried to say that the US has a lot in common with pre-nazi germany.. One difference however being Germans were supporting facists???!

[graffic]

the Iraqis are actually worse off then they were under Saddam

Are they?

I want to know why people opposed the war before any Western powers had intervened and Saddam was still gassing Kurds?

[GPDP]

Yes, but before a bullet had even been fired there were millions of people here in the UK on the streets campaigning against the war.

I can understand looking back on the war and realizing how disastrous it was, however I don't understand the thinking behind leaving nations entirely to their own ends. Even when kids are being massacred and women raped? This ideology which Lenin and many other leading leftists support.

Who says we're for leaving nations entirely to their own ends?

What we support is the right of people to determine their own destinies. If a brutal dictatorship is taking part in mass murder, it should rightly be opposed in solidarity with the people being oppressed, but not with the condition that we're gonna go over there and set up base to dominate that nation's people in our own way.

Those who took to the streets to protest the war before it began did so because they understood precisely what the US intended to do.

[GPDP]

Yeah I'm familiar with Chomskys work.

Very enlightening and often a lot of it is true. He tends to be over pessimistic about the US though, his last piece of work "Failed States" tried to say that the US has a lot in common with pre-nazi germany.. One difference however being Germans were supporting facists???!

Considering the shit that has been coming out of McCain supporters recently, I don't think it's that much of a stretch.

[Algernon]

So is it the communist position that intervention is never acceptable unless "in solidarity with the people being oppressed?" What does that mean exactly?:confused:

[GPDP]

The subject of intervention, I believe, is a controversial one. IMO, I don't think a military invasion is the right way to "intervene" in case of a humanitarian crisis, genocide, or what have you.

[graffic]

Those who took to the streets to protest the war before it began did so because they understood precisely what the US intended to do.

How exactly did they know this? Were they close to people who were close to Bush?

[GPDP]

How exactly did they know this? Were they close to people who were close to Bush?

Please. With a little bit of critical thinking (a little country like Iraq poses a threat? lol) and a look back at history (Vietnam), it's not hard at all to discern imperial ambitions whenever they show up. Plus, the European media is not as bound to the official Washington line as the American media is.

[graffic]

So imperial ambitions are worse than genocide?

Surely you can support intervention but oppose Bush's specific policy?

I.e support the war but push for them to get the fuck out of there when the job has been done.

[GPDP]

And what are the chances that's gonna happen?

Do you know what military force means to the population of a country? Do you know what happens when we start dropping bombs upon the infrastructure of the country to bring the government to its knees? Have you any idea of the atrocities we ourselves would commit to the people during the process of invasion?

How, pray tell, do you impose any sort of meaningful freedom in such a manner? True freedom can never be imposed from outside, but must be fought for from within. The people must do the honors of freeing themselves. We can perhaps aid them in many ways, but military intervention is just asking for further oppression.

More than anything, I believe means determine ends, and military means of intervention will more than likely result in oppressive ends.

[danyboy27]

And what are the chances that's gonna happen?

Do you know what military force means to the population of a country? Do you know what happens when we start dropping bombs upon the infrastructure of the country to bring the government to its knees? Have you any idea of the atrocities we ourselves would commit to the people during the process of invasion?

How, pray tell, do you impose any sort of meaningful freedom in such a manner? True freedom can never be imposed from outside, but must be fought for from within. The people must do the honors of freeing themselves. We can perhaps aid them in many ways, but military intervention is just asking for further oppression.

More than anything, I believe means determine ends, and military means of intervention will more than likely result in oppressive ends.

you know, i had this sort of thinking, but when i saws the mutilated bodies of a fews of the 400 000 peoples killed during the genocide in darfur, i kinda changed how i was perceived the things. Actually, i would be glad to be there and kill those murderous fuck, even if this would mean the local population would hate me for being here.

a lot of people whine about afghanistan and all that, and i do agree that since nato is there the civilian casuality toll is way above the normal but i cant say they would be better off without western powers, seriously, the taleban sucked ass, and where murderous fuck on a daily basis, and even if the us are there for their personal interest, at least women and children are not executed in a football field for some bullshit marital reasons.

i think Iraq was something else, mainly beccause we didnt stopped the murderous fuck when he was doing bad things in the 90s like..killing the kurd. even if corrupted, the saddam regime was a lot more quiet, no mass killing anymore since year, investing his money on a big giant mosques rather than buying new tanks.

then again i hate when countries do stuff for their personnal interest, but force to admit that sometimes this save life.

the armenian genocide was stopped by russia, the killing of the jews where stopped by brittish and american forces and russian forces, the rpf succesfully took over the rwandan governement, ending the rwandan genocide.

the only thing that allow the evil man to triumph is the innaction of the good man

[Drace]

I somewhat agree with Spatnez.

What is best is what produces the best results. No need for universal laws such as "Imperialism is always bad".
Maybe we shouldn't even call this acts as imperialist?

Now for things like the Israeli occupation, thats imperialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not pro-intervention. I am infact anti-Imperialist to an extent however my thinking is this..

Surely if supposedly "X" dictator is killing kids and women or oppressing blacks. Shouldn't more powerful, more civilized and less brutal nations, (e.g US) have a right to intervene and stop "X" dictator killing kids?

[citation needed]


Surely It was a good thing that the US removed the evil dictator - Saddam Hussein and restored democracy in Iraq. A sweeping statement I know (which isnt true to an extent). [citation needed]

[danyboy27]

I somewhat agree with Spatnez.

What is best is what produces the best results. No need for universal laws such as "Imperialism is always bad".
Maybe we shouldn't even call this acts as imperialist?

Now for things like the Israeli occupation, thats imperialism.

yea, and seriously, we should be there right now to end this shit.
but well, national interest, all that shit slow down the intervention process.
lets not forget the palestinian militant group that are doing a great of job of making palestine hated all over the world by using intelligent tactics like suicide bombing bus or dropping a volley of homenade missile right over a settlement.

you cannot take side in a mess like palestine/israel conflict. what could eventually reconconciliate them together could be the intervention of a military power on their soil, but looking how the israeli military is doing after year of war with its neighbor i say there is verry fews superpower that could actually efficiently invade israel, here is the fallowing list:
-the chinese
-aliens with railgun, teleporting device and mothership

[Ratatosk]

Are they?Yes.

I want to know why people opposed the war before any Western powers had intervened and Saddam was still gassing Kurds?When, according to you, was the last time Saddam was "gassing Kurds"? Afaict, that was some 20 years ago (and the U.S. had no problem with this at the time). I don't understand why you think this is a genuine, legitimate pretext for an invasion which happened in 2003.

Perhaps instead of repeating soundbites from the media, you could start actually thinking about them critically. I mean that as a genuine suggestion.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Individual nations never go into other nations "out of the goodness of their hearts".

So waxing poetic about nations intervening to "protect the women and children" is silly, in my opinion.

[danyboy27]

Individual nations never go into other nations "out of the goodness of their hearts".

So waxing poetic about nations intervening to "protect the women and children" is silly, in my opinion.


okay but what your brillant idea to counter stuff like what happen in darfur for exemple? just, let them being killed by a ruthless dictator?
arnt you supposed to be on the people side man?

avoid people like him:

http://cosmicdynamics.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/sudan_president.jpg

to do that?

http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/DarfurGenocide.jpg

[danyboy27]

i think most of the peoples here are awares that western nations dont do stuff out of kindness, but seriously, who care about the country that make violence stop? if their intervention mean the end of the genocide, then its good. Of course we can Question the motives, and the techniques employed to make it stop, but i wont shed a tear for the end of the taleban regime.

i may shed a tear for the end of the saddam regime, but when reconsidering the facts, i dont think i would have liked having qsay president of iraq after the death of saddam.

[Vendetta]

If I remember, there was an uprising against Saddam.

Guess who helped him put it down? :laugh:

[Drace]

yea, and seriously, we should be there right now to end this shit.

You do know that the US is strongly pro Israel?
They have supplied them with over 100 billion in the last 30 years. That doesn't include all the free weapons they gave as well.

So Israel, being the size of New Jersey, has the worlds 4th largest military.

[danyboy27]

If I remember, there was an uprising against Saddam.

Guess who helped him put it down? :laugh:

what your arguments?

[danyboy27]

You do know that the US is strongly pro Israel?
They have supplied them with over 100 billion in the last 30 years. That doesn't include all the free weapons they gave as well.

So Israel, being the size of New Jersey, has the worlds 4th largest military.

yea, but i think that even the us they would be a powerfull military force, stopping the influx of money and hardware will not be enough to stop them, simply beccause it never worked with any countries on earth. Cuba, iran, they all got ambargo but at the end, it dosnt stop them.

[Junius]

I am not pro-intervention. I am infact anti-Imperialist to an extent however my thinking is this..

Surely if supposedly "X" dictator is killing kids and women or oppressing blacks. Shouldn't more powerful, more civilized and less brutal nations, (e.g US) have a right to intervene and stop "X" dictator killing kids?

I'm not aiming to provoke debate or propound a view, I'm just curious to understand the real thinking behind people who oppose the Iraq war and Afghan war on "anti-Imperialism ideology" grounds..

Surely It was a good thing that the US removed the evil dictator - Saddam Hussein and restored democracy in Iraq. A sweeping statement I know (which isnt true to an extent).

However suppose the US was out of Iraq and the Iraqi people were freed from an evil dictator. Would Anti-Imperialists still be against the intervention?

Like many things there is more than meets the eye. I am against imperialism, but I am not an anti-imperialist; at least in the common manner the term is applied. Just like I am against fascism, but do not fall into the trap of anti-fascism. Why?

Because it says nothing about class war. It says nothing about class struggle against capitalism. It focuses on which nationality exploits a capitalist nation and not which class rules.

In Japan, for example, we saw the so-called anti-imperialist struggle against the post-WW2 occupation. This was something common to both communists and nationalists - deciding which capitalists they preferred to rule workers. Logically enough, the former 'oppressed' capitalists are now the oppressors - Japan is just as imperialist as any other nation.

What is the ideology behind anti-imperialism? It serves one portion of a ruling class against another. It divides workers into opposing national fronts, with their weapons aimed at each other. There is nothing contradictory in the concept that one can be anti-imperialist and reactionary, anti-imperialist and a social democrat, anti-imperialist and fascist, anti-imperialist and conservative; they often go hand in hand. There is, however, an absolute contradiction in the idea that one can be an anti-imperialist, as it is currently applied, and a communist.

If we accept that imperialism is inherent in capitalism, then by definition we also accept that the only real anti-imperialism is class war; and not arguing for the rights of bourgeoisie leaders to govern. Hence, we call on soldiers and workers to fraternize and not to point their guns at their proclaimed enemies, but their real enemies: the ruling class.

As for your argument regarding Iraq; it would be naive to think that America engaged in it for humanitarian reasons. There was nothing humanitarian when American arms dealers supplied weapons to Iran and Iraq and the bloodbath that followed. But clearly such a conflict served all ruling classes involved; war time brings strict discipline of the population to the ruling class and draws workers away from their real oppressors.

Anti-imperialism is nothing but a prostitute for the ruling class; they hire it one day, and throw it out the next.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The United States is not less brutal or more civilized. And they have aso never been engaged in an international conflict out of altruism.

[danyboy27]

The United States is not less brutal or more civilized. And they have aso never been engaged in an international conflict out of altruism.


nobody actually did.

but it dosnt change nothing to tha fact that we cannot accept things like genocides to happen and just ltes the fucker get away with it.

somebody now and then have to kick some ass to stop massacer.
i have to admit that sometimes things get worst, but come on! nazi germany!sudan! we cant let them do such things, not in a mondiaized like today.

[Killfacer]

Spetz is right, occasionally you have to intervene. Britain in world war 2 for example, you cannot sit back and let people get massacred.

[danyboy27]

Spetz is right, occasionally you have to intervene. Britain in world war 2 for example, you cannot sit back and let people get massacred.

Seriously, britan could have stopped ww2 by listening to stalin when he said germany was a treat, but well, the brits refused and in order to cover their asses they signed a treaty with germany.

britian acted for his self preservation knowming that the german would cap their ass next.

BUT still, i am fucking happy they took action against germany when they invaded poland. it has to be done, no matter the reason, germany had to be taken down, otherwise more innocent would have died.

if tomorow the us is willing to invade soudan i would be 100% for, even if there is probably some hidden reason behing it, at least someione who have done something to stop the bloodshed.

but i think military intervention in certain context is just innapropriate, for exemple the current conflict between cambodgia and thailand over that monument, its their problems, they both have an organized army, a functionning political system, its not our problems. BUT if cambodgia invade thailand and systematicly whipe out a certain ethnic group, that a fucking big problem, and we would have to move in.

and this day, i would not care who gonna kick in, or why, the important is to make the killing of women and children stop.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You do know that the US is strongly pro Israel?
They have supplied them with over 100 billion in the last 30 years. That doesn't include all the free weapons they gave as well.

So Israel, being the size of New Jersey, has the worlds 4th largest military.

We give money to countries which give a return. We gave billions to rebuild Western Europe and Japan for the same reasons.

If Israel ran it's country and military as well as Pakistan does they wouldn't get near the amount of aid.

[Jazzratt]

We give money to countries which give a return. We gave billions to rebuild Western Europe and Japan for the same reasons.

If Israel ran it's country and military as well as Pakistan does they wouldn't get near the amount of aid.

So the US has no interest in having a non-muslim, loyal and powerful ally in the middle east. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that, maybe, America benefits from the brutal regime they're propping up? :lol:

It's all just about how they run their military. Wow.

[JimmyJazz]

Saddam was still gassing Kurds

No, he wasn't. Honestly, it's pretty clear you haven't read anything about this topic, not even wikipedia.

[RGacky3]

Talking about imperialism in the context of stopping dictators to save the people is like talking about hitler in the context of being a painter.

[danyboy27]

Talking about imperialism in the context of stopping dictators to save the people is like talking about hitler in the context of being a painter.

its all about the definition of imperialism man!

[Bud Struggle]

We give money to countries which give a return. We gave billions to rebuild Western Europe and Japan for the same reasons.

If Israel ran it's country and military as well as Pakistan does they wouldn't get near the amount of aid.


America gives aid to Israel to keep up their standard of living to a par with the US. America wants the countries to be "interchangeable" when it comes to lifestyle and military ability.

Israel is America's Mini Me.

http://op-for.com/dr%20evil%20mini%20me.jpg

[RGacky3]

its all about the definition of imperialism man!

I don't know what definition of imperialism America would'nt be included in.

The point of my post was that any socalled humanitarian effects of American imeprialism (there arn't many at all) are completely incidental, just like how hitler was a painter, it does'nt matter, he was mainly a genocidal dictator, American imperialism is about domination and profit.

[danyboy27]

I don't know what definition of imperialism America would'nt be included in.

The point of my post was that any socalled humanitarian effects of American imeprialism (there arn't many at all) are completely incidental, just like how hitler was a painter, it does'nt matter, he was mainly a genocidal dictator, American imperialism is about domination and profit.

but you have to admit that thr percentage of good/bad is definitively not the same compared to nazi germany and the magnitude of bad stuff or the intentions of making people suffer definitively not the same at all.

[graffic]

I don't know what definition of imperialism America would'nt be included in.

The point of my post was that any socalled humanitarian effects of American imeprialism (there arn't many at all) are completely incidental, just like how hitler was a painter, it does'nt matter, he was mainly a genocidal dictator, American imperialism is about domination and profit.

I agree. Most US foreign policy is shaped by economics however this doesnt mean all foreign policy adopted by the US is "bad".

Take Hawaii and Israel for example.. Hawaii has benefitted hugely since the US invaded and systematically took over their country and stripped them of their independence. The standard of life etc is sensational compared to Cuba.,

Then there is Israel.. yes, it is a valuable ally to the US economically but because of this the Jews now have self-determination and a positive democratic state to live in.

Bad examples of US intervention would be Cuba and Iraq. I think its ridiculous to tar everything the US does abroad as "bad" and "evil". Its a lot more complex than that.

[RGacky3]

I agree. Most US foreign policy is shaped by economics however this doesnt mean all foreign policy adopted by the US is "bad".

When I say "bad" I don't nessesarily mean that the material outcome is bad (although it usually is), but that the motives are bad, i.e. selfish, and for power. Many empires did things for the places it conquered, take the roman empire for example, roads, water systems, and the such, but its still domination, and still bad.


Bad examples of US intervention would be Cuba and Iraq. I think its ridiculous to tar everything the US does abroad as "bad" and "evil". Its a lot more complex than that.

I'm not saying its all negative, some of it is humanitarian work, although its almost always motivated through self-interest, a lof of times the humanitarian work is to reward subservient behavior, try and protect a subservient regiem, try to undermine the rebellous regeme (they call them rogue states). Now you could say those are positive, and they do help the people sometimes, but ultimately it increases US power, increses Capitalists power, and in the long run hurts the subservients, because they stay subservient.


but you have to admit that thr percentage of good/bad is definitively not the same compared to nazi germany and the magnitude of bad stuff or the intentions of making people suffer definitively not the same at all.

I'll say its a lot more indirect, and over a lot longer time, and slower. If you asked a Nazi his intentions he would say to protect the fatherland and the ayran race. If you aksed a CEO that set up sweatshops he would say its to provide and perform for his shareholders and give a lower price to the consumer. Its not about intentions perse, its about the way the system works, and how people act within that system.

Thats why imperialism is so rampent, its not because imperialists are "evil" its because they work in a system that very very very strongly encourages it, not only that but to stay on top and not fall to the bottom you pretty much have to do that. Thats the way power structures work, if you want to stay on top you gotta keep flexing your muscle.

[Vendetta]

what your arguments?

What do you mean?