Why oppose Imperialism?

[Waz]

Now before you go off on me, I'm having a debate with this libertarian dude whos convinced that some good can come from imperialism; that it is in fact immoral to refuse to intervene in areas suffering humanitarian crises or the sort. The Iraq war, as disastrous as it was, removed the dictatorship of Saddam once and for all and allowed the Iraqis a democratic government of their own, so theres that bright side. Not that I agree with any of this AT ALL, but I'd like for leftists here to explain why imperialism is wrong. I didn't actually know there were people out there seriously thinking "But is imperialism all bad??" but there you go.

[Creative Destruction]

I'm just shocked that there's a libertarian out there that defends the idea of "humanitarian" intervention.

Anyway, take the Iraq war as an example. They did not exactly get a democratic government. They got a government that was more or less installed by the United States, who the US thought would be friendly enough to have an interest with. Certain parties were banned from participating and there were widespread boycotts of the election. Welp, it turns out that the guy they chose was a nepotistic, tribalist dickwad and now we have ISIS to deal with because of him (and, by extension, the US for choosing him.) But aside from unintended consequences of imperialism (ISIS in Iraq, genocide in Rwanda, etc.), it limits the autonomy of people who are not apart of the belligerent nation, has no shared culture with it and is often done at the end of a barrel in pursuit of some gain at the extent of those who are being subject to the imperialist power -- and this is true of "humanitarian" interventions, as well.

[RevUK]

The Iraq War is the worst possible example. It was not humanitarian intervention, it was blatant imperialism. Iraq is not a democracy and Saddam Hussein was significantly better than the kleptocrats currently running the shattered nation.

Meanwhile, in the midst of the wave of neo-Keynesian epiphanies, Iraq was hit with the boldest attempt at crisis exploitation yet. In December, 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group fronted by James Baker issued its long-awaited report. It called for the U.S. to “assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise” and to “encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies.”
Naomi Klein

Most of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations were ignored by the White House, but not this one: The Bush administration immediately pushed ahead by helping to draft a radical new oil law for Iraq, which would allow companies like Shell and BP to sign 30-year contracts in which they could keep a large share of Iraq's oil profits, amounting to tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars – unheard of in countries with as much easily accessible oil as Iraq, and a sentence to perpetual poverty in a country where 95 per cent of government revenues come from oil.

This was a proposal so wildly unpopular that even Paul Bremer had not dared make it in the first year of occupation. Yet it was coming up now, thanks to deepening chaos. Explaining why it was justified for such a large percentage of the profits to leave Iraq, the oil companies cited the security risks. In other words, it was the disaster that made the radical proposed law possible.

Washington's timing was extremely revealing. At the point when the law was pushed forward, Iraq was facing its most profound crisis to date: The country was being torn apart by sectarian conflict with an average of one thousand Iraqis killed every week. Saddam Hussein had just been put to death in a depraved and provocative episode.

Simultaneously, Bush was unleashing his “surge” of troops in Iraq, operating with “less restricted” rules of engagement. Iraq in this period was far too volatile for the oil giants to make major investments, so there was no pressing need for a new law – except to use the chaos to bypass a public debate on the most contentious issue facing the country. Many elected Iraqi legislators said they had no idea that a new law was even being drafted, and had certainly not been included in shaping its outcome.

If you cited Cuba's intervention in Angola then you'd get more support here. However, that wasn't imperialism.

Imperialism and humanitarian intervention are two different things.

[Tim Cornelis]

http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/103...h-imperialism/

Imperialism never announces itself to be imperialism, obviously.

"Throughout history, the systematic violence and coercion that maintains the current imperialist world order has been justified by various ideas. Prior to World War I the big idea was that the imperialist nations were bringing civilisation to the uncivilised. In the late 20th century it was bringing democracy to totalitarian states. More recently it has been about preventing genocide or mass murder."

This focusses on Western imperialism. Chinese imperialism against Tibet, after WWI, was certainly justified by "white man's burden" of civilising the uncivilised Tibetans.

It's also disturbing that RevUK would say Hussein was "significantly" better. Tankie suspicions are rising.

I don't see why Cuba's humanitarian imperialist intervention wasn't imperialism. It sought to carve out a piece of Africa over which the USSR could exercise hegemony, thus serving as auxiliaries of Soviet imperialism. Of course, this goes back to the ridiculous argument that Cuba somehow attained the first phase of communist society ("socialism") already despite the generalised existence of commodity production and wage-labour.

I'm not familiar with any 'humanitarian intervention' and unless RevUK or someone else can give me some examples I will maintain that it doesn't exist, and that it's ridiculous to juxtapose it with imperialist intervention. Essentially, it seems, 'humanitarian intervention' means imperialisms I agree with.

http://monthlyreview.org/books/pb1471/

[contracycle]

I don't see why Cuba's humanitarian imperialist intervention wasn't imperialism. It sought to carve out a piece of Africa over which the USSR could exercise hegemony, thus serving as auxiliaries of Soviet imperialism.

Uff, this seems rather tendentious to me.

[Tim Cornelis]

Uff, this seems rather tendentious to me.

ok? 'I feel like you expressed an opinion that can be regarded controversial'. How is that a contribution to the discussion?

[contracycle]

Admittedly, it isn't.

[Diirez]

Just tell your friend a sceanario and see how he reacts.

For instance, ask your friend whether or not it's okay for a bigger, stronger student on the playground to beat up/intimidate smaller, weaker kids for their lunch money.

Imperialism is wrong because it is exactly that. Stronger, bigger nations going into weaker, smaller nations and intimidating and/or beating up on them to give into the demands of the bigger nation.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Humanitarian intervention is a liberal invention. Its funny to see both libertarians and stalinists defending it. Historically 'humanitarian interventions' precede the humanitarian crisis they supposedly seek to alleviate. Such a thing does not exist, it's just imperialism.

[RevUK]

Humanitarian intervention is a liberal invention. Its funny to see both libertarians and stalinists defending it. Historically 'humanitarian interventions' precede the humanitarian crisis they supposedly seek to alleviate. Such a thing does not exist, it's just imperialism.

Let's go back to the schoolyard analogy.

Look at the bigger, stronger student on the playground beating up/intimidating smaller, weaker kids for their lunch money. If a teacher steps in and puts an end to the bullying, is that teacher being an imperialist? Should the teacher be condemned? Of course not.

If you cannot accept the premise of humanitarian intervention then it would be futile to try to convince you of actual historical incidences of it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That's not what happens though, you're just vomiting the idealized liberal narrative of how interventions are justified retroactively. If a country like the US for example was really interested in the well being of the populations they invade, one would think they would stop propping up dictators in those countries in the first place yes? That way they would spare the population the horror of intervention all together. Or shit if they really aren't willing to give up war, how about not using cluster munitions or radioactive tank shells at least?

The logic of humanitarian intervention simply doesn't pan out, there are too many plot holes. Any reasonable person not blinded by ideology has to come to the conclusion that something else is really going on.

[Dean]

Now before you go off on me, I'm having a debate with this libertarian dude whos convinced that some good can come from imperialism; that it is in fact immoral to refuse to intervene in areas suffering humanitarian crises or the sort. The Iraq war, as disastrous as it was, removed the dictatorship of Saddam once and for all and allowed the Iraqis a democratic government of their own, so theres that bright side. Not that I agree with any of this AT ALL, but I'd like for leftists here to explain why imperialism is wrong. I didn't actually know there were people out there seriously thinking "But is imperialism all bad??" but there you go.

Humanitarian intervention is a euphemism for imperialism, which is in the business of destroying anything resembling civil society in target regions, based on their refusal to enforce the wishes of the imperial power. If this wasn't the case, it would actually refer to medical assistance and humanitarian aid. But the "intervention" term is added to allow for the implementation of conflict as if it were humanitarian.

It is even possible that military intervention can be done for humanitarian goals, but most of the examples touted are nothing of the sort.

The fact that a libertarian is supporting the most extreme form of state terror and attack on human rights / civil liberties shows just how tenuously "liberty" is related to the standard libertarian creed.

[Ravn]

This focusses on Western imperialism. Chinese imperialism against Tibet, after WWI, was certainly justified by "white man's burden" of civilising the uncivilised Tibetans.

You're projecting European cultural issues where they don't apply all while alleging to shift the focus away from Western imperialism to Chinese social-imperialism. At least the PRC overthrew slavery & the theocratic rule of the Lamas. Are you defending the Tibetan masses or are you defending one overlord as opposed to another?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

At least the US overthrew saddam! Are you siding with the Iraqi masses or just one overlord as opposed to another? You really are a shit liberal. Send us Tim Redd not this paltry sock puppet

[Ravn]

At least the US overthrew saddam!

... all while wrecking havoc over the Iraqi people. See the difference?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Haha only the former Tibetan ruling class has been harmed by the PRC's activity in Tibet?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Talking about our opposition to imperialism, I don't think that we do and ought to oppose imperialism merely on the grounds that it's harmful in that it kills people or destroys democracies or whatnot. I don't think we do and ought to oppose Israel simply because "Palestinians are dying" or "Palestinian should have a state they desire". That's liberal opposition to imperialism, not Marxist. But don't get me wrong - there is a material aspect to oppose in imperialism, i.e. imperialism harms working-class interests directly and materially. But I don't think that's the main reason we should stand against imperialism.

It seems to me that the main reasons is purely ideological. Considering the current state of development of capitalism, support for imperialist ventures can take only a reactionary form. By not taking a principled anti-imperialist stance, you necessarily legitimise the government in its military actions. If you allow for "humanitarian intervention", that props up the reactionary ideology in that it becomes enough for the state to masquerade its imperialism in "humanitarian" rhetoric, because such interventions are now legitimised and maybe even welcomed in our ideological universe. In that sense, it gives an ideological support and legitimation, in other words it gives real power, for the ruling class to use in the class war. Any support for imperialist ventures - be they "humanitarian" or otherwise - can only take a reactionary form and produce reactionary outcomes for our side.

Of course, life is not that simple and there might be circumstances where our interests might coincide with those of the ruling class and so the ideological implications might not be that negative compared to material ones, but as a rule, we should take a principled anti-imperialist stance in the current state of capitalist development, mostly because of its ideological implications.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's ironic how liberal Stalinists are. Again, imperialism is always conducted under the pretext of some moral appeal. The reason I mentioned China was because the Weekly Worker article mentioned "before WW1" while the Chinese example illustrates that outside of Western imperialism, this pretext was still used after WW1. Supposedly motivated by moral reasons of fighting serfdom and theocracy, in reality it invaded to extract resources for industrialisation and economic growth. Similarly, contemporary China's 'peace keeping force' in South Sudan is not motivated by peace but by protecting China's capital investments. Incidentally, it's not "social" imperialism, just imperialism.

The fact that a libertarian is supporting the most extreme form of state terror and attack on human rights / civil liberties shows just how tenuously "liberty" is related to the standard libertarian creed.

To be fair, the vast majority of right-libertarians are non-interventionists.

[Ravn]

Again, imperialism is always conducted under the pretext of some moral appeal.

You keep repeating that but it's not necessarily true. "In foreign policy, the neoconservatives' main concern is to prevent the development of a new rival. Defense Planning Guidance, a document prepared during 1992 by Under Secretary for Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, is regarded by Distinguished Professor of the Humanities John McGowan at the University of North Carolina as the "quintessential statement of neoconservative thought". The report says:[68]

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.""


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocons...racy_promotion


Where's the moral appeal in the above? They're not lying to themselves about what they're up to here.

The reason I mentioned China was because the Weekly Worker article mentioned "before WW1" while the Chinese example illustrates that outside of Western imperialism, this pretext was still used after WW1. Supposedly motivated by moral reasons of fighting serfdom and theocracy, in reality it invaded to extract resources for industrialisation and economic growth. Similarly, contemporary China's 'peace keeping force' in South Sudan is not motivated by peace but by protecting China's capital investments. Incidentally, it's not "social" imperialism, just imperialism.

It's social-imperialism because it's socialism in word, imperialism in deed. OTOH, regardless of any ulterior motives, fighting serfdom & ending theocracy were socially constructive things. Why do you insist on looking at this in a one-sided way?

[contracycle]

I think the Tibet scenario raises the prospect that things are not so straight forward. I, for one, would certainly not have wanted to get up and say that I would acknowldege Tibet's bourgeois "right" to be a nation-state, that we were obliged to respect the authority of the religious caste, that the human suffering was nothing to do with us. Seems to me, that's quite a tough row to hoe.

Now of course the counter-argument can be made that all this was so much cynical fluff designed to justify a land grab, and seeing as this is a discussion about what we imagine is going on in other people's heads, essentially unresolvable.

But more interestingly, both of them can be true, in different people or sometimes in the same people.