Surely, this counts as flaming?
Well Paul Mattick, for one, would disagree. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mat...ar-america.htm
Results 41 to 60 of 74
I don't think I'm setting up a straw man, though. You did put forth the idea. Notice that putting forth an idea is not the same as supporting something.
For starters, there's a difference between "not supporting" and opposing. The latter points towards a concrete practical activity.
I think the question starts in the wrong end. First of all we should ask ourselves what is going on and what effects this has on the prospects of class unity and consciousness. I think the way you pose this is in the vein of your sentiment above that the left isn't relevant enough. The question is a lot more conpliated than that: at the worst this could end in making really bad decisions with horrible effects in hope of being "relevant".
"What is necessary is to go beyond any false opposition of programme versus spontaneity. Communism is both the self-activity of the proletariat and the rigorous theoretical critique that expresses and anticipates it."
-----
"...Stalinism is eternally condemned to govern capital, and the ideological dynamics of Stalinism are tied to this peculiar type of capital management; it is locked within this framework, reproducing the logic of capitalism under the veil of communism. For this reason, Stalinism, and its various derivatives, cannot accurately be regarded as communist if we choose to define it in materialist terms." - Tim Cornelis
Surely, this counts as flaming?
Well Paul Mattick, for one, would disagree. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mat...ar-america.htm
"What is necessary is to go beyond any false opposition of programme versus spontaneity. Communism is both the self-activity of the proletariat and the rigorous theoretical critique that expresses and anticipates it."
-----
"...Stalinism is eternally condemned to govern capital, and the ideological dynamics of Stalinism are tied to this peculiar type of capital management; it is locked within this framework, reproducing the logic of capitalism under the veil of communism. For this reason, Stalinism, and its various derivatives, cannot accurately be regarded as communist if we choose to define it in materialist terms." - Tim Cornelis
No, the only idea I put forth is to steer the conversation in a direction other than revleft pablum. How do you feel about yourself when you lie?
And what effects do you think this has on the prospects of class unity and consciousness?
Considering I don't disagree with anything Mattick said there, I don't see how this is supposed to support your point. The only thing it does prove is that you were actually constructing a strawman. I'm not "moved" to support the United States in anything and I don't think they should be bombing Iraq or Syria. So, when are you going to put this straw-argument to rest and actually deal with the points that I've made? Or is all you intend to do is lie about my position?
For what it's worth, I did some digging around on the Iraqi Communist Party. Per Levy's main complaint seemed to be that they supported the US invasion in Iraq, but I can't find anything on that. So, Per Levy: if you can provide a source for that claim, it'd be appreciated.
If I had written something and more than one person took it to mean something other than I intended, I would go back and read it again to see if I had expressed myself clearly before I started calling people liars and threw abuse at them. I have just read through them again, and find it difficult to read them any other way.
Devrim
And yet there is nothing in my post that indicates that I support what my country has done. It's not like multiple people couldn't have willful misreadings with an opinion they disagree with or anything.
Last edited by Creative Destruction; 17th September 2014 at 15:52.
Something huge is going to happen against the USA because the people on the wrong end of American bombs and bullets will not take this lying down.
Who are the oppressors? The few: the King, the capitalist and a handful of other overseers and superintendents. Who are the oppressed? The many: the nations of the earth; the valuable personages; the workers; they that make the bread that the soft-handed and idle eat.
---- Mark Twain
There is nothing the "radical left community" can do. Our support, condemnation or even neutrality is absolutely worthless and insignificant. There is nothing the Communists can do, because there isn't a Communist movement to begin with - nay the less one that can make impactful decisions with regard to the endeavours of the state, domestic or abroad.
What can honest, committed intellectuals (who may or may not be working people) do? Fight for the revival of Communism, and for universality. Fight for a new Communism single mindedly without the baggage of previous sectarian "politics", or anything that binds you to the old. Make yourself devoted to the crusade to save our heroes and predecessors from historical damnation, and struggle for the spectres of our dead to finally find peace among the living in the next revolution.
The left has lost its heart. It is not that these people with good intentions can't find support. It is that their intentions are wrong, the foundations of their beliefs are wrong. Do you want to grow and die in a world where the October revolution will go down in history as ammunition for national chauvinists in Russia and nothing more? Do you want to watch our wretched world descend into barbarism by which Communism cannot even have an ideological or political place? There is no hand of history that will pave the way for us. Communism can rot in the dustbin of history without the will of Communists.
This isn't just about stopping genocide. Islamism will never be defeated by Liberalism. Even if they squash ISIS, the Islamists won either way. This is about a battle for universality. Bullets and bombs will not quell the notion that the war is between God's will and the infidels, the community of the faithful against the wicked, decadent and corrupt. Do you want to live in a world where the French revolution is remembered as a Satanic conspiracy? What the world needs to know is the infallibility of the gods of the revolution. That only our cause is holy and true.
Only a universal war of the exploited can stop ISIS, only such a war can water the Earth with the blood of the billionaires and royalty of the gulf, the mullahs of Iran and their toadies - only a red crusade can rid the world of the Islamist filth.
But who are these countries which intend on bombing ISIS? Is it France, where the rise of neofascism poses a greater threat than the conflicts of the Near east? Is it the UK, where the problem is identical? Oh, excuse me - is it his majesty and the Arab league? Who are these "saviors" who will restore order and peace to the Levant, it would seem order and peace is needed in their own fucking countries.
This isn't 2004. We are at the most historically fatal moment in the history of human civilization. There is no functioning, uncontested world state apparatus anymore. It is on the brink of mutation. The "civilized, secular" Western world is on the brink of hell. Global multicultural liberalism is in total and utter retreat universally. You must know it. You can feel the coming storm on the tip of your fingers. The ugly head of capital is once again going to rear its head. The legitimacy of the existing political order is waning. And it is making room for a monster.
What can the Communists do? Start anew.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Consequences of the first American invasion of Iraq: Zarqawi's little shortbus crew of Wahhabi cultists turned into one of the world's most impressive insurgencies, and then, into a full-fledged state carved out of Syria and Iraq.
Consequences of American intervention in Libya: previously secular peaceful country broken up into Wahhabi City-States, Wahhabi Emirates(no, seriously, Libya's second biggest city has been conquered by ISIS-aligned Wahhabis like Ansar al-Sharia and they proclaimed a sovereign Islamic Emirate there), and some territory held by a wannabe military dictator.
Consequences of American intervention in Syria: half of the previously secular peaceful country turned into half a thousand different fiefdoms ruled by Wahhabi warlords.
There's a pattern here. We can only dread what will be the result of another American military campaign in Iraq. American intervention always leads to Wahhabi rats multiplying at an exponential rate.
I don't know why you assume this. I have seen a number of posts on this board justifying US intervention in relation to ISIS, and in person, I have seen a lot of people who identify as 'socialists', who I never would have expected to support a US military campaign, get on board with this. So no, I don't think it is a given that "we're all 'anti-imperialist'" at all.
Any coalition that includes the gulf states is not going to undermine terrorism, if any of you are hoping for that.
+ YouTube Video
I'll agree that things are getting even-more, increasingly complicated and messy.
What I'd *like* to see would be the U.S. cleanly cutting out the IS strictly with an air campaign, not affecting any civilians, not attempting to build any geopolitical coalitions in the region, and then, at the end of it, removing its presence altogether so that the various internal populations can deal correctly with the strongmen of their respective countries, through revolts and revolution.
What it's *looking like*, though, is further U.S. meddling, in whatever forms -- the shining epitome of opportunism in the region, in other words.
I'm admittedly at a loss, aside from a generic, pro-forma revolutionary defeatism.
US prepares for “generational” war in the Middle East
I do like the thrust of your message (see my last blog post from years ago for a similar point) and agree with your conclusions about the broader movement; but I disagree with your analysis.
Capitalism (I wouldn't call it "multicultural liberalism", as it is led basically by the USA and its closest allies) has proven incredibly corrosive at breaking down ideologies hostile to it. Marx recognized this in the context of 19th century Europe and he has been proven incredibly correct in other contexts.
Historical materialism is a powerful force. Even ideologies like Bolshevism which proved premature in the former eastern bloc could not survive the onslaught. Christianity has vanished as a meaningful social force from most of Europe as has Buddhism in east Asia, and religion is on its way out even in America.
There is no reason "Islamism" or any other pre-capitalist ideology would be exempt from this trend. Right now they are buoyed by incredible wealth borne of the west's dependence on the fossil fuels. And even independent that there will be occasional moments of reactionaries succeeding, as there are in any culture (e.g., G. W. Bush in America winning "values voters" or Japan's prime minister visiting Yasukuni). But these kinds of things are the dying gasps of non-capitalist ideologies.
百花齐放
-----------------------------
la luz
de un Rojo Amanecer
anuncia ya
la vida que vendrá.
-Quilapayun
You're right, but the point is that Islamism is not a pre-capitalist ideology. The Islamism of ISIS is an ideology of capital. What we are seeing is not those challenging the rule of capital - rather (and, similarly to 20th century Fascism) different degenerate ideologies of capital, which represent potential fundamental changes in the political order vying for power over the universal state apparatus. ISIS is not a case of indigenous barbarians versus the onslaught of capitalism. ISIS is the onslaught of capitalism itself - Islamism itself, as a matter of fact, dating from the Muslim brotherhood is a perfectly capitalist ideology.
So the point isn't that I'm confusing multicultural Liberalism with capitalism - but that the victory of Islamism does not mean the end of capitalism, but the end of multicultural Liberalism.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Yes you are quite correct that Islamism, or at least Wahabism, is distinctly modern, almost capitalistic, insofar as it did not exist in anything like its current form until the challenge of western hegemony was upon it.
It is still important to understand that reactionary ideologies can be as responsive to social change as progressive ideologies, but that doesn't make them any less reactionary. They arise, almost by definition, as reactions to the forces of social change. This was arguably the story of the Prussian monarchy which Marx studied so closely for decades. And both of us agree that these sorts of phenomena have compelling parallels to 20th century fascism.
Having said this, I have little doubt that were something like ISIL able to maintain itself, it would adopt capitalist practices at the expense of its stated beliefs. This is exactly what Saudi Arabia has done.
The issue is that such capitalist beliefs cannot help but undermine the legitimacy of non-capitalist sources of power (i.e., the religious establishment). At first, this might seem like relatively mundane issues like permitting interest to allow the issuance of corporate bonds, but the only destination they can reach, in the long term, is to corrode patriarchical practices, clan loyalties, and other pre-capitalist vestiges. This has happened in every capitalist economy, from Korea to Tunisia, there is no reason to believe the Islamists will be an exception.
Perhaps where we differ is that I don't think ideologies like "Islamism" can be victorious, at least in any meaningful or sustainable sense.
百花齐放
-----------------------------
la luz
de un Rojo Amanecer
anuncia ya
la vida que vendrá.
-Quilapayun
And "multicultural liberalism" is what, exactly?
The views that liberal democratic capitalism is essentially a force with universal appeal which draws on people of all cultures and makes equal space for them. The assumption that a liberal, multicultural society is achievable in a modern capitalist global economy and is effectively the end of historical development is problematized when Marie LePen, Vladimir Putin and Victor Orban are emerging as serious political contenders out of the last great epoch of liberal expansion.
The point is that no matter how noble the intentions of the liberal multiculturalist, liberal capitalism cannot produce the kind of society he desires. What we need is socialism, not mild liberal reforms
Socialist Party of Outer Space
I'll posit that, in the current absence of outright neocon-type hawkishness, the national -- and even world -- cultural paradigm becomes one of 'multiculturalism', at best, which is also synonymous with 'identity politics':
