Ángel X
With Imperialism waging an increasingly many wars over the past 10 years, it now finds itself in a weakened condition. This is the worst global economic crisis since the great depression, millions in the Imperialist countries are out of work, and looking for answers, and yet, the parties of the Left or Anti-Imperialism, do not take advantage of this, nor do they cheer what may well be the downfall of Imperialism. As the West bankrupts themselves in their attempt to kill more and more Muslims, the overall reaction from the countries of the world, and many Leftist, Anti-Imperialist movements in particular, does not seem to be outrage, but lethargy.
I remember the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, when many 'Anti-Imperialist' groupings and organisations declared themselves in support of the US-European attack on Afghanistan. The anti-war rallies were small affairs between a few principled groups. The invasion of Iraq sparked a much larger outcry, and all groups attempted to take advantage by forming their own anti-war organisation or front. There were indeed large rallies, which even as of 2005, had the disturbing tendency to boil down to Anti-Bush or Anti-Blair rallies. This led to the opening of the Obama door in the United States, with the Left jumping over themselves to vote for Democratic promises of ending wars, and for the rehabilitation of Labour in the United Kingdom after Blair. After 2009, despite the ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and US-European intervention-by-proxy in Somalia and of course, Palestine; there were basically no anti-war rallies to speak of, and certainly none rivalling a few years before. Now, with all Imperialist countries uniting against Libya, the largest anti-war rally in America in the past few years, was the rally in Harlem the other week, which was grouped together mainly by the Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party, both of whom are traditionally despised by so-called Left-Wing, Anti-Imperialist organisations.
What is in some ways much more concerning than the failure of the Left on anti-Imperialism, is the ramifications on a world level, both for states and people. For the Imperialist states intervening, it is apparent that Imperialism's decline is much more significant than expected. Acting from a position of strength, Imperialism does not need armed force, as Lenin, amongst others observed a long time ago, it merely needs finance capital. However, acting from a position of weakness, it must fall back on brute force and hard power, which is much more costly and risky. The surprising abundance of wars and conflicts which Imperialist countries now tie themselves in, shows that they cannot just wait for new markets to exploit, rather, in a life or death struggle, they are willing to near-bankrupt themselves to open up even the smallest areas. Whereas 100 years ago, the sick-man of Europe was Turkey, today the sick-man of Europe is Europe and the European economies outlook is uncertain at best, with demonstrations and bankruptcy around the corner, or already present for most countries. The situation in England shows that discontentment is at a fever-pitch and the slightest moves can reach the powderkeg. Turkey, meanwhile, still wishing to be a part of a Europe which is neither truly able nor willing to accept her, has the second-largest armed force in NATO and the largest in Europe, and now acts as muscle for European Imperialists, what a shameful fate for the sons of Alp Arslan and Mehmet al-Fatih. But, there is no doubt that in the future, Turkey will see that the Imperialists need Turkey much more than Turkey needs them.
The Arab world seems as bankrupt as the European one, and there is no telling what disaster their futures hold. Exactly 100 years ago, the Italians invaded Libya, and today, the Arabs invite the European Imperialists back, as they did with the Arab Revolt, they place confidence in Imperialist promises over their own brothers, and so will continue to suffer. Ever since they revolted against the Caliphate, the Arabs have lost Jerusalem, have seen themselves colonised and divided into an increasing number of states, they have seen themselves defeated in war time and time again because of their refusal to have as much Islamic unity against the Israelis as the Israelis have Jewish unity. With the split of Sudan, the continued cries of Western Sahara, Somaliland and a chaotic and uncertain future for Libya and Yemen, it is still unknown what the 'Arab Spring' will bring. In-fact, it is highly probable that the Arab world will end up far worse off than it was a few years ago, though such is rather fitting for leaders who crush the people of Bahrain while decrying the revolutionary defence of Libya and who are willing to contribute man and machine to bomb their brothers in Libya, but not to march on Al-Quds, after all, the Arabs have never gone to the UN to get a no-fly zone over Gaza and the West Bank.
No Imperialist power looks weaker than the United States, for all of its military might and spending (48% of the world's total), it finds itself unable to secure victory in the many wars it involves itself in. It has created so many wars it now finds itself heading towards bankruptcy. Yet, in the chaos and worst economic time since the 1930s, the Left finds itself unable to gather support, and continues to kow-tow behind Obama and Imperialism. While the Left absolutely must fight against the Tea Party racists, it also must equally struggle against US Imperialism, which is the entire cause of the US economic situation today, both for the Capitalist economic practices and external military ventures. The Left should be riding high and proud that its portents of Capitalism and Imperialism come true before their very eyes, and instead they fear the decline of the countries they live in and tail behind pseudo-Leftist rhetoric of bourgeois politicians. The lack of broad Leftist support for the Libyan Revolution and for the continuing Anti-Imperialist (and in some cases, Leftist) resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq, indicates a betrayal of the world revolutionary cause, which does not damage the revolutionary cause in Libya or Iraq, it only damages it where opportunists sell out.
The outright fact, is that many Western groups claiming a Left-Wing or Anti-Imperialist stance, or both, do not wish to thoroughly oppose Imperialism or see it fall, they merely want to get in with Imperialism or retain their current level of comfort. The parties who vote Labour or vote Democrat, do so because they wish for the system to be fixed. But, the systems are not being fixed, they are falling apart, because the fundamental problems of lie in the foundation. The desire for the system to be fixed so that arm-chair revolutionaries can continue to preach from the safety of their own couch is the primary reason that as mentioned earlier, the Anti-War movement tailed behind Bourgeois politics and never adopted the principle line of actually wishing for the downfall of Imperialism. Where are the signs calling for the destruction of the Imperialists by the brave Mujahideen of Afghanistan or Iraq? For the victory over Imperialist intervention in Somalia? For the complete liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea? Or for the victory of the Green banner of revolution in Libya? They are rare, because the majority of so-called Anti-Imperialists weren't against Imperialism, they are petty-bourgeois loud mouths only concerned with the decline of their own comfort due to war.
There is no room for going backwards of sectarian, ideological wars amongst ourselves, regardless of trend or tendency, all anti-Imperialists must unite for the downfall of Imperialism. Make no mistake, the aggression of Imperialism shows nothing except decline and weakness, the collapse of Imperialism will not wait for anyone to catch up, and anyone who refuses to stand up against it, will be left behind in the chaos.
Note: Yes, this is effectively a long rant on the problems of the Left, Anti-War and Anti-Imperialist movements, as run by the petty-bourgeois and their student organisations and parties. I think it is necessary to point out the hypocrisy that exists and dialogue from a point of acknowledgement.
Edited by babyfinland ()
(I've long since lost any interest in keeping tabs on how the ISO, SWP, CPUSA, WWP or whoever rate actual socialist movements around the world; perhaps one or more of them have taken a stand on this, but I agree that the rank-and-file leftist who doesn't wait for party doctrine doesn't see Libya as the forefront of any kind of revolutionary struggle.)
Raul_X posted:
I think the left does speak out on some of those; I think Palestine has been a rather obvious article of faith for the left for some time, The problem is that their support is entirely rhetorical and privileged- they're asking Israel to do these things really no differently than a member of Congress might; they eschew condoning the tools that the Palestinian people have at their disposal. Their blame will primarily go to Israel (this is the difference with the mainstream American) but it's perpetrating the same naive notion of a 'cycle of violence' and wanting to take the high road from that sort of thing. I think Chavez has been easy for leftists to support because his 'revolution' hasn't really led to conflict; the real test would be if and when his regime was threatened by imperialist interests and the response was violence- would they then stand with Chavez?
discipline posted:
letists in the states don't generally support palestine out of any love towards anti-imperialism. I find that most leftists are seeking to liberate palestine as opposed to support palestinian liberation. for instance, they support palestine IF that palestine is going to be secular, liberal, socially permissive, etc. basically they support palestinians who think or look or talk like they do. then it becomes more of an "israel, don't do X!" stance, where you are protesting the methods but not necessarily the occupation itself.
Yes, I agree, what I meant I guess is that it is assumed as a leftist or radical you support Palestinians insofar as that means opposing Israel in vague and symbolic ways. I don't think most leftists bother to contextualize it beyond this. You're right that such support evaporates once it clashes with pet issues like gender/sex/secularism that many self-proclaimed Marxists see as outranking relations of production.
Groulxsmith posted:
Yes, I agree, what I meant I guess is that it is assumed as a leftist or radical you support Palestinians insofar as that means opposing Israel in vague and symbolic ways. I don't think most leftists bother to contextualize it beyond this. You're right that such support evaporates once it clashes with pet issues like gender/sex/secularism that many self-proclaimed Marxists see as outranking relations of production.
Well, in the Western countries, the Left is mainly petty-bourgeois college students or former organizers of such in the 1960s and 1970s. So, they just represent their own petty-bourgeois morality and social issues, those are the priority, the liberation of the world proletariat and oppressed, that's not a priority.
my question is this: are they salvageable? is there any hope for the progressive left to side with the world proletariat, or are the material conditions too overwhelming? the progressives themselves often point to "propaganda" as the reason that the majority of the west disagrees with them, while ignoring material conditions that may cause people to believe differently. now obviously they have no wish to consider their own material conditions, or what effects the "propaganda" of the west have on themselves, but is there any hope for the predominantly white liberal, progressive majority? if so, what would it look like?
It helps to exclude the opinions of self-proclaimed liberals from analysis of the Western left because liberals by their own definition don't want to undermine or overthrow empire they want to save it on their own terms. Self-identified leftists and socialists can be pro-imperialist hacks at times but they generally don't deserve to be lumped in with liberals.
Impper posted:
that seems sort of like an alliance with the fascists, you'd have to be more worried about how you're going to fight them after the victory than about securing the actual victory
Alles Leben ist Kampf
HenryKrinkle posted:
No offense or anything but I'm kind of tired of this "I'm so much better than those other leftists" attitude that I see on LF/WDDP/elsewhere. There was a lot of opposition to the Libyan war from Western socialist groups and I don't think it's fair to conclude otherwise.
It helps to exclude the opinions of self-proclaimed liberals from analysis of the Western left because liberals by their own definition don't want to undermine or overthrow empire they want to save it on their own terms. Self-identified leftists and socialists can be pro-imperialist hacks at times but they generally don't deserve to be lumped in with liberals.
by "pro-imperialist hacks at times" don't you mean "pro-imperialist hacks every time something is at stake for imperialism"
HenryKrinkle posted:
No offense or anything but I'm kind of tired of this "I'm so much better than those other leftists" attitude that I see on LF/WDDP/elsewhere. There was a lot of opposition to the Libyan war from Western socialist groups and I don't think it's fair to conclude otherwise.
It helps to exclude the opinions of self-proclaimed liberals from analysis of the Western left because liberals by their own definition don't want to undermine or overthrow empire they want to save it on their own terms. Self-identified leftists and socialists can be pro-imperialist hacks at times but they generally don't deserve to be lumped in with liberals.
I believe the author shares your frustration somewhat ("Note: Yes, this is effectively a long rant on the problems of the Left, Anti-War and Anti-Imperialist movements, as run by the petty-bourgeois and their student organisations and parties. I think it is necessary to point out the hypocrisy that exists and dialogue from a point of acknowledgement."), and you are correct that there has been a lot of anti-war agitation from western socialists, but where is the support for a broad anti-imperial front? why the condescending attitude towards the world's global majority and the oppressed peoples of the world? it seems the western left only cares to align with the international anti-imperial movement when they are asked to go to war. other times they are "constructively critical" (even now, i see more criticism of qadaffi than i have ever seen from the "left") in an effort to opportunistically hijack resistance efforts for their own petty domestic gains. the western "left" is always more concerned with its domestic image and having "nuanced opinions" which it can leverage for personal gain, playing the empire against the barbarian
Damn first worldist skkkum.
EDIT: I see your point now. It's true that despite being "anti-war" much of the US left would stick to saying Gaddafi was a Bad Bad Man and never even think of supporting him against NATO and the rebels, even as a lesser evil.
Point conceded.
HenryKrinkle posted:
http://www.workers.org/2011/us/stevens_0811/Damn first worldist skkkum.
thats a good article btw
HenryKrinkle posted:
http://www.workers.org/2011/us/stevens_0811/Damn first worldist skkkum.
this explicitly recognizes gaddafi as the leader of libya, which is not the set of socialists that i'm criticizing (i can't speak for angel or raul here)
the leftists say "we're against war in general, but yes you're right, it's probably better if gaddafi is removed," to which the rightist replies, "see, we're on the same page, that's our only goal here, after all"
International Socialist Organization (USA): "No one who cares about justice will shed a tear for Muammar el-Qaddafi. He was a tyrant, with the blood of many people on his hands.... Qaddafi deserved to be overthrown"
Socialist Party USA: " in solidarity with the people's movement for democratic rights in Libya... We strongly condemn the use of violence by the authoritarian Qaddafi regime to prolong its inevitable collapse."
CPUSA: "President Obama was right in resisting warhawks' calls for early military intervention in Libya. He needs to stand up against them once again, by moving toward a quick cease-fire. Surely the United States can work with other world leaders to defend and protect the Libyan people with the vast economic and diplomatic powers it possesses. This, along with getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, is the way to move toward establishing U.S. leadership as a beacon for democracy, peace and social justice."
getfiscal posted:
Here are a few quotes from leading American leftist organizations:
International Socialist Organization (USA): "No one who cares about justice will shed a tear for Muammar el-Qaddafi. He was a tyrant, with the blood of many people on his hands.... Qaddafi deserved to be overthrown"
Socialist Party USA: " in solidarity with the people's movement for democratic rights in Libya... We strongly condemn the use of violence by the authoritarian Qaddafi regime to prolong its inevitable collapse."
CPUSA: "President Obama was right in resisting warhawks' calls for early military intervention in Libya. He needs to stand up against them once again, by moving toward a quick cease-fire. Surely the United States can work with other world leaders to defend and protect the Libyan people with the vast economic and diplomatic powers it possesses. This, along with getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, is the way to move toward establishing U.S. leadership as a beacon for democracy, peace and social justice."
yeah. i already conceded that point.
still p. sure that WWP and PSL are consistent tho.
Impper posted:
lol i guess they're for the clinton approach of murderous sanctions
one of the best things in the nato bombarding of serbia is when americans patted themselves on the back for precision bombing of serbia, "look at how many less people we killed!" Less than what? Who knows? All the while they're bombing our infrastructure, leaving it a shell of what it once was. Nobody counts the deaths due to not having running water or electricity for months, hospitals forced to shutdown, or food shortages.
elemennop posted:Impper posted:
lol i guess they're for the clinton approach of murderous sanctionsone of the best things in the nato bombarding of serbia is when americans patted themselves on the back for precision bombing of serbia, "look at how many less people we killed!" Less than what? Who knows? All the while they're bombing our infrastructure, leaving it a shell of what it once was. Nobody counts the deaths due to not having running water or electricity for months, hospitals forced to shutdown, or food shortages.
Are you Serbian? Can you comment on the support for Qadaffi in Serbia? (maybe in a more appropriate thread, or in a seperate one altogether)
africa: people living off trash
america: HOLY FUCK OUR TVS ARENT WORKING
babyfinland posted:elemennop posted:Impper posted:
lol i guess they're for the clinton approach of murderous sanctionsone of the best things in the nato bombarding of serbia is when americans patted themselves on the back for precision bombing of serbia, "look at how many less people we killed!" Less than what? Who knows? All the while they're bombing our infrastructure, leaving it a shell of what it once was. Nobody counts the deaths due to not having running water or electricity for months, hospitals forced to shutdown, or food shortages.
Are you Serbian? Can you comment on the support for Qadaffi in Serbia? (maybe in a more appropriate thread, or in a seperate one altogether)
yeah, i'm serbian, living the usa now, so i can't give you like a full picture, but from what i've heard it's unilateral support. libya and gaddafi have always had close ties with us, but especially now that they've joined the "nato raping you" club.
there were even rumors of serbian planes bombing rebel troops, which is beyond laughable
edit: i should qualify that i haven't been paying attention to what geopolitcal games the government has been trying to play
Edited by elemennop ()
I actually don't blame the CPUSA for their line, because they've been voting Democrat since FDR, and I can't knock them for continuing in their historical line. What I can knock, is that while most parties denounce the CPUSA as being the Marxist Caucus of the Democratic Party, basically every single party in-turn takes its line from the CPUSA, they just claim it as their own creation. In 2004-2008, most every party adopted the CPUSA's Anyone-But-Bush line, however they chose to uphold this. Brezhnevites justified it by some gradualism, Trotskyists and many others on the basis of defending social rights like abortion, many others on the 'Anti-War' nature of the Democrats, Maoists on the historical precedent of the CPC-KMT alliance against the Chinese warlords, Hoxhaists and others on the Popular Front thesis of Dmitrov. People just need to keep it real, you're either down with the system or you're not, and I don't even mind if people are honest about being down with the system, I just mind when people claim to be anti-Imperialist and then take efforts to compromise the Anti-Imperialist struggle at every turn.
Impper posted:
one thing i often wonder about: it's obvious that most of the liberal and progressive left in the west is basically aligned with imperialism, basically aligned with the west; their issue is with the distribution of wealth in the west and they have no care for where this wealth comes from. though they occasionally make some noise about imperialism and colonialism, they come down on the west's side in every major conflict.
my question is this: are they salvageable? is there any hope for the progressive left to side with the world proletariat, or are the material conditions too overwhelming? the progressives themselves often point to "propaganda" as the reason that the majority of the west disagrees with them, while ignoring material conditions that may cause people to believe differently. now obviously they have no wish to consider their own material conditions, or what effects the "propaganda" of the west have on themselves, but is there any hope for the predominantly white liberal, progressive majority? if so, what would it look like?
That's actually a fair point. Due to the nature of Capitalism at the present time, much of the actual industrial jobs, a lot of the necessary labour for an economy is located elsewhere, and this has created a large segment of people who exist by doing service labour. A giant network of imported material and products implies a need to distribute them, and a load of cashiers and the like. This has produced many, many problems, which I won't go into because that would be a long analysis of labour alienation and social decline. However, much of the Left comes out of the petty-bourgeois, and indeed, the reason they don't want Imperialism to fall is it would hurt their own interests by quite possibly pushing them into performing manual labour, but even if it didn't, it would necessarily imply a decline in the living standards.
I think it depends. I don't actually discount the entire Western Left in one blanket swoop (granted, I do consider forces like the NOI and NBPP to be Left-Wing), I think many Western Leftists can play a solid role against Imperialism if they should have the principles to. But, this would imply an organization which primarily recruits from the proletariat in the West, which at least in the US, is by-and-large Black and Latino, and currently unemployed or minimally employed, due to the crisis of Capitalism at the present time. This would be a radical breach from the standard Recruit Wealthy White Students at College strategy, which has never worked in the long-run, for very obvious reasons. If you organize the right people, next time London wouldn't just be chaos, but revolution and it would work the same in the USA.
Secondly, a major factor the Left doesn't pick up on, and I am not only referring to the Western Left in this, but most Leftist parties around the world, what they do not get is the role of ideology. I do not mean to downplay consciousness in any regard, but people place WAY too much priority on learning various theories and following 'proper' ideology. Let's be entirely honest and keep it real: If I'm a worker who works 12 hours a day to keep myself and my family afloat, is my absolute priority going to be Volumes I, II or III of Capital (I'm a fairly intellectual person, and I still hate Capital)? My priority is going to be on access to food, and cheap clothing and how I can ever go to a doctor since I have no insurance, and if my children will ever be able to afford to go to decent schools (they probably won't). People care about the NECESSITIES and practicalities of their everyday life, ideology is a far, far second to that, and the people, throughout all of history, have shown that they will be willing to follow any ideology which can provide that for them. This is why despite having the purity of Marxism-Leninism or whatever ideology, most Leftist parties have no real grassroots support amongst the proletariat, they only have it amongst the intellectual elements of the petty-bourgeois, while groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, whose entire focus is on using a variety of front organizations to provide food and clothing, and schools and free healthcare to the poor, wind up with substantial support which comes mostly from the working class. I love Gamal Abdul Nasser and the ideology of Nasserism, I legitimately do, but people wonder why Nasserists and Marxists have basically no support amongst the working classes in the Middle East and why the Muslim Brotherhood emerges with a massive base of proletarian support, and that is why. If you do right by the people, and set up infrastructure that they need and depend on, you earn their trust, and in-turn, you will receive their support.
In the United States, basically no-one has picked up on this, probably out of a desire to speak and not do. The Honourable Elijah Muhammad said to 'Do for Self' and he, by way of Malcolm and others, heavily influenced the Black Panthers and Young Lords, who were two of the only parties in US history to have actual social programs. Granted, the Nation has never recovered the full base of its support since the 1978 split, but the entire reason it had a following, from working class Black and Latino people in the millions (and still maintains a very substantial mass-base), where I can speak truth and say that right now, even most of the largest Left-Wing parties do not exceed 1,000 (being generous), is because they had social programs and an economic platform which allowed people to be a part of something and benefit from outside of the system.