Author
|
Topic: Empire and its Fixers
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 02 August 2007 06:57 AM
An interesting short little piece over at Monthly Review about how local minions can always be found to serve imperialism no matter where you go in the world. quote: Yoshie Furuhashi: But it is not just a Kurdish fixer who thought that way in Iraq. Nuri says, "I supported the war, as did many of my countrymen and pretty much all the fixers" That is the power of hegemony. Nearly all countries have ethnic and regional disparities and grievances, some of them very severe, which the empire can exploit, but even without them the empire can still find a faction who support its doings, especially among the better off or better educated than the average, in just about any country it wants to conquer. And it is through the eyes of that faction, the faction of fixers, that we in the West see their country, for they are the ones who speak our language. We look into their eyes and see what we want to see, the image of ourselves as "saviors." Those fixers who are not mere mercenaries wishing to fix their country for a foreign power for their mutual profit, i.e., the fixers who genuinely wish to fix real problems of their people, eventually come to learn "a painful lesson," as Nuri did: "sometimes when you try to fix something, you break it even more. . . . Some of us paid with our lives. Now we are no longer sure we will ever be able to fix anything."
The footnotes are as interesting as the short article. quote: Furuhashi: Political liberalism speaks the language of equal rights, an ideological reflection of equal exchange in the market, the dominant ideology today. It is through free exercise of equal rights, much more than through their violations, that capital expands itself as it widens inequality.
And then there's good old "divide and conquer" ... quote: Furuhashi: What is the method of humanitarian imperialism? A method that has adapted an ancient tactic of divide and conquer to the age of modern mass media and human rights organizations. Its essence, however, was already well summed up by Machiavelli in The Prince (Chapter III):Again, the prince . . . ought to make himself the head and defender of his powerful neighbours, and to weaken the more powerful amongst them, taking care that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, get a footing there; for it will always happen that such a one will be introduced by those who are discontented, either through excess of ambition or through fear, as one has seen already. The Romans were brought into Greece by the Aetolians; and in every other country where they obtained a footing they were brought in by the inhabitants.
And a Gramscian observation ... quote: Force alone can never build an empire, let alone expand it. A critical mass of subjects, prepared by intellectuals, must "spontaneously" consent to the rule that subordinates them, or else the ruler cannot control the rest. That is so not only in national politics, as Antonio Gramsci explained in his Prison Notebooks, but also international relations.
Empire and its FixersAll in all, very interesting and a useful reminder. Imperialism can always find such people, people who are then used as an ideological crowbar to break the resistance of others.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2007 08:17 AM
Well, doesn't it just depend upon identifying one faction as "imperialism?"Some would say that the former Soviet Union also had little trouble finding people to support its "imperialism" where ever Soviet troops attained dominance. In Eastern Europe, Communist parties had no trouble finding people willing to serve the state and to avail themselves of the privileges that involved. No doubt, some of those people believed the ideology, just as some of those who serve the US believe in its ideology, too. Others, though, just liked to have special dacha privileges or access to special stocks at the stores for party members only.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 02 August 2007 08:41 AM
Imperialism is an objective term from Political Economy ... not simply an arm-waving pejorative. Jeff if you want to indulge in cold war rhetoric, over 15 years after the collapse of the SU, then you need to show how the old SU was imperialist, the role of the export of capital to dominate other countries, the institutions of economic dominance, etc. Otherwise you just sound like a small child who utters things like, "I know you are but what am I?" and other rich pearls of wisdom. For those who are genuinely interested in the topic: Furuhashi's term of "fixers" reminds me of the book Economic Hit Man. It helps to show how the whole system works ... even if you can't always identify who, what, where, when, etc., all the time. Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent and other similar books outline how thought control takes place in a "democracy" and falls in the same general field. It ought to go without saying that understanding how imperialism "works" is a prerequisite to developing an anti-imperialist strategy. Of course, if you view "imperialism" not as an objective term from PE but as a sort of generic insult, then, obviously, one insult is as good as another.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2007 09:02 AM
Stephen is right, of course, that this whole analysis simply depends upon believing in the idea that certain countries are "imperialist" while others cannot, by definition, be imperialist.Being glib about the definition is just a confession that the analysis cannot be seriously maintained. The semi-definition offered above, involving "export of capital" is basically bafflegab, because the Soviet Union used to claim that since it wasn't "capitalist" it could never export "capital". Maybe, but they sure could control and militarily occupy other countries when they wanted to. Later, the Chinese entered the terminology derby. They, of course, say they never exported "capital" either. But they said the Soviet union, now certified as Bad, were "SOCIAL imperialists". Outside of the Communist Party worldview, "imperialism" doesn't NECESSARILY involve "export of capital". Just being occupied and subjected to foreign control is imperialism enough for most. [ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: jeff house ]
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 02 August 2007 09:17 AM
Meh. The term is generally used to describe a particular stage in the history/development of capitalism. You could have a look at the classic definition put forward by Lenin in his famous book Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism ... but I would not recommend that you stop there. There are non-Marxist theoretical traditions that use the term as well. Lenin outlined 5 (or so) basic economic features of imperialism for special attention: 1) the concentration of production and capital is so high that is has produced monopolies which play the decisive role in the economy; 2) banking capital merges with industrial capital to produce finance capital and the financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital, rather than the export of commodities, acquires especially great importance; 4) international monopoly union of capitalists are formed, which divide the world; 5) the territorial division of the world among the major capitalist powers is completed. To this I would add military aspects (as per Jeff House's comments about the Soviet Union, for example) ... which leads me to some recent analysis... John Bellamy Foster has a brief interview in regard to his most recent book, Naked Imperialism, in which he covers some of the debate around the term. Of course, if one views capitalism as the end of history, and not as a stage of history with a beginning and, presumably, an end, then terms like "imperialism" that are used to describe this or that stage of capitalism must seem very odd indeed. Supplemental: I don't have any objection to criticizing dominance of one state by another, even by a socialist state (or whatever you want to call it) but using the term "imperialism" seems to just muddy the waters in a misleading sort of way. Two socialist countries, China and Viet Nam, after all, went to war. Aggression is not the monopoly of imperialist countries. Just because a state isn't "imperialist" in the usual sense of the term doesn't mean it can't play a repressive role internationally. But lumping dissimilar things together as "imperialism" is hardly helpful in clarifying how today's capitalism works and, very importantly, what political strategies would flow from a solid analysis of today's imperialism, dominated as it is by the unipolar "superpower" as it is. [ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 02 August 2007 09:52 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
So does this mean that the US - which is the destination of enormous flows of capital - is a victim of imperialism? And that China, Russia and the Gulf states are the real imperialists?
The way I see it is that the cold war was partly about dominant revenue ?. At the height of their power, the USSR controlled trade, or barter, among about a third of world nations. The capitalist west about two-thirds. Certain Soviets like Gorbachev realized that the embargo situation was becoming intolerable for their citizens who began finding shortages of basics on store shelves, like citrus and chocolate thanks to powerful transnationals like Sunkist and Cadbury's monopolies on cocoa and fruit. And then there were other factors of propaganda which led Soviet citizens to believe the western system was providing more and better goods for us, which U.S. capitalists were doing thanks to technology transfers between government research agencies and publicly-funded universities from the 1960's to 80's. The Soviets were estimated to have been behind the west by about eight years worth of technological development by the start of the 1980's. The Soviets had few flow-through mechanisms to pass on technological developments on to consumer demand. I think the west basically won the cold war of ideologies using the socialist practice of investing in R&D through public agencies combined with capitalist methods for mass production and distribution. And now consumption based economies are killing the planet.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2007 10:09 AM
In other words, in order to buy into the idea of this thread, we have to accept the Communist definition of imperialism: quote: The term is generally used to describe a particular stage in the history/development of capitalism. You could have a look at the classic definition put forward by Lenin in his famous book Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism
Riiiight. So only capitalist nations can be "imperialist" . And we should then divert our eyes from the really-very-similar-to-imperialist practices of countries like the USSR and China. Then we can pretend that those who busily justify the imperialism of the USSR, China, etc are not EQUALLY culpable "Empire Fixers" as the targets of this thread. Because Lenin defined that possibility out of existence.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 02 August 2007 10:21 AM
Get with the program, Professor. All you're doing is to point out that there is such thing as inter-capitalist rivalry, investment in each other's "spheres of influence" and so on. That's hardly a novel observation or a serious critique. In fact, it's a confirmation of the usefulness of the theory that the dominant country can in fact change and has done so in the past. If you bother to read J B Foster's piece you would probably find that he looks at current US foreign policy as an attempt to retain permanent global economic (and therefore political) dominance by a pumped-up militarization, doctrines of "preventative war" and so on. We both know that the dominant capitalist/imperialist country is now the USA ... but at one time that role was occupied by England/Britain, the first truly capitalist country. There must have been a point, therefore, where the Brits lost their dominant position and the Americans grabbed it. Most historians place this around the end of world war 2 when the colonial empires collapsed. These things are hardly black and white or fixed in stone as one might conclude by reading misleading caricatures. Incidently, Marxists typically point to this phenomenon (inter-imperialist rivalry) as a main cause of war on planet earth. Most serious historians of WW1, e.g., would agree with assessing the main cause of that horrific loss of human life as just that.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2007 10:31 AM
Did you know that trying to delegitimize people based on their status is an old Stalinist trick?The Nazis did it too, of course, because intellectuals make poor party members. Since you've done it twice here, I presume it is a conscious tactic. But when you guys hide your identities, it is really despicable.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 02 August 2007 11:01 AM
Fidel I would point out that among those who use the term "imperialism" seriously, there are strong differences of opinion about what kind of country Canada is. Some, and I include myself among these, would argue that Canada is an imperialist country in its own right. Others dispute this. There are further debates about whether there can be any really progressive Canadian nationalism or whether such ideologies are simply following behind the political views of Canadian capitalists. I happen to be of the view that there is such thing as a "good" Canadian nationalism. I would just underline that the left tradition which insists that a sound political analysis must flow from a sound political economy is one that I support, even if I can't or don't follow all of the debates. Supplemental: there is a debate, for example, whether "globalization" is really a useful term at all. Cheers. [ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 02 August 2007 11:18 AM
Relying on any political party to lead us to the promised land is, I think, a mistake. Canadians through their unions, civic organizations, and political parties, etc., need to find a way to bring all the threads of resistance together and drive the Conservatives from power. I don't think it's impossible. Just look at how successfully they have shot themselves in the foot: on Afghanistan, on funding cuts for women, on abandoning Kyoto, on torpedoing the Kelowna Accord, on their secrecy fetish, on their neo-liberal foreign and economic policy, etc.. Now if we could just find a wedge issue for the left ...
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 02 August 2007 11:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: Relying on any political party to lead us to the promised land is, I think, a mistake. Canadians through their unions, civic organizations, and political parties, etc., need to find a way to bring all the threads of resistance together and drive the Conservatives from power. I don't think it's impossible.
I agree, but not if that plan of attack includes voting "strategically" for the Liberals. We might as well throw up the white flag in that case. I think the federal Liberals are bought off to the idea of full spectrum submission to U.S.S.A.'s expansion of military and economic power. quote: Just look at how successfully they have shot themselves in the foot: on Afghanistan, on funding cuts for women, on abandoning Kyoto, on torpedoing the Kelowna Accord, on their secrecy fetish, on their neo-liberal foreign and economic policy, etc.. Now if we could just find a wedge issue for the left ...
And all that with more than 100 Liberal MP's in Ottawa. In my view, Harper doesn't need a majority. He already has it. A qucik comment on Canada as an imperialist nation. Yes we are, but we're not the central imperialist nation. We have no formidable military, but we do supply the U.S. with key parts and components by our own military-industrial complex as a complement to imperialism central. Those exports important to the U.S. military-industrial complex central apparently don't show up in our own GDP figures. It's a closed economy within the economy. Interesting to note that the Pentagon quietly reported that over a trillion dollars was missing and unaccounted for just before Bush won the 2000 election with a minority of the popular vote and the pretext for a war of conquest already in the skunkworks for several months. [ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2007 11:55 AM
quote: The Marxist tradition, like others, draws attention to the conflict over what words mean as a (possible) political conflict.
Well, in this thread, you started out by ASSUMING that the ONLY possible meaning for "imperialism" was the Leninist/Marxist one. Then, you dumped on everybody who fit THAT definition. In fact, I'd say that most people do not understand the term that way, possibly because it represents special pleading and excuse- making for Communist Party members (since they could NEVER be accused of being "fixers" for "empire". By definition. Generally, though, the Roman Empire, the Chinese and the Soviet Empire were or are realities, and the people who assiduously advance their interests are certainly no better than those who help/ed the American, British, or French Empires.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 August 2007 12:40 PM
You are all wrong. Civilization is inherently an imperialist project. The Cold War was a rivallry among factions of Western Civilization, the true global imperialist project.For all the fuss and much ado over the ideologies of "communist" and "capitalist", they amount to the same thing when viewed from afar: hierarchial systems governed by elites, supported by institutions obedient to the system. Sure, there is more to it than that, but essentially there is little difference between the two for the guy who sweeps the floors after them. Civilizations to survive must grow and expand. As they do so, their needs for raw and finished resources grows accordingly. To obtain the resources required, they must go further afield which requires greater expansion and growth. Civilizations can grow by a number or means with colonization being a favourite. While the definition of "imperial" might shift according to ideology or spin, the basic meat of the article above with regard to the matter of "fixers" seems about right. Every expansion of an empire has always found those who would willing collaborate in return for rewards whether personal or misplaced beliefs they were helping their own people. [ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2007 04:22 PM
quote: For all the fuss and much ado over the ideologies of "communist" and "capitalist", they amount to the same thing when viewed from afar:
So do stars and planets. When viewed from close up, though, great differences are discernible. "Viewing from afar" is often simply an argument for refusing to acknowledge relevant distinctions. Your post, "viewed from afar" looks just like my post.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 August 2007 04:40 PM
So what have you just said? Nothing. Viewed up close or viewed from afar. The distinctions you speak of are only important to technocrats and ideologues. To the people who go to work everyday they are far less discernible. The simple truth of the matter is that in either system small minorities of elites are the net beneficiaries and holders of economic and political power. Each waged or wages war in the name of liberation and freedom when it is really expansion and control. Soviet communism and corporate capitalism are just different brands of the same product: Western Imperialism.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 02 August 2007 06:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: Generally, though, the Roman Empire, the Chinese and the Soviet Empire were or are realities, and the people who assiduously advance their interests are certainly no better than those who help/ed the American, British, or French Empires.
All of those empires except one were based on slavery at some point. Tsars, like the American capitalists, realized it would be cheaper to allow slaves to provide their own shelter and food. The Nazis planned to enslave Eastern Europeans and Russians permanently and liquidate useless eaters after they tookover Russia. And after U.S.-backed Chiang and his gangsters were to defeat the Maoists, I think the fascists were hoping it would be one big global free trade setup based on slave labour and a lack of basic rights. The Soviet system lacked key ingredients for imperialism based on exploiting cheap labour: the profit motive as an official driver of the economy, and private property laws. Aspiring gangster capitalists changed all that in the 1990's during perestroika. mafia + usury = "free market economy" [ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 03 August 2007 11:50 AM
Posted by Frustrated Mess: quote: You are all wrong. Civilization is inherently an imperialist project. The Cold War was a rivallry among factions of Western Civilization, the true global imperialist project. For all the fuss and much ado over the ideologies of "communist" and "capitalist", they amount to the same thing when viewed from afar: hierarchial systems governed by elites, supported by institutions obedient to the system.
Is civilization really the culprit here, or is it also human nature? If you study our closest primate cousins (chimpanzees) or early human societies, you will find that their social and economic relationships were even more hierarchical than modern civilizations. For example, the alpha male chimp and the most productive females get to eat while weaker members of the colony starve or are killed. You see similar behaviors in early human societies. As Darwin notes, this cruel hierarchal behavior was dictated by the need for the species to ensure its own survival. I rather think that, whatever its faults, civilization creates the conditions for a more - not less - egalitarian society.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 03 August 2007 12:02 PM
quote: The Soviet system lacked key ingredients for imperialism based on exploiting cheap labour: the profit motive as an official driver of the economy, and private property laws.
Yes, this was the argument of the Soviet government. You have reproduced it faithfully. But others might think that 1)Occupying a foreign country; 2)Enforcing advantageous terms of trade for the empirial centre; and 3)Overthrowing any government there which opposes your ideas for its internal or external policies, would be enough to qualify as "imperialist". The "Brezhnev Doctrine" and the Monroe Doctrine have quite a bit in common. The point here is that following along in the Soviet Songbook won't lead to anything like independent thought. OF COURSE the Soviet Union would never admit it was imperialist! But just regurgitating their definitions is another way of being a Fixer..as in the thread title.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 August 2007 12:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
Yes, this was the argument of the Soviet government. You have reproduced it faithfully. But others might think that 1)Occupying a foreign country;
Yes, but as you and others like you always neglect to point out, Eastern Europe was occupied by a real imperialist military force just prior to being liberated by the Red Army. The Soviets claimed those countries as front line defence against fascist aggression with WWI, the 25 international armies that invaded Russia between 1918-22 to restore Russian monarchy to power, and Nazi war of annihilation against Soviet communism aka western aggression part two. Expansion of Soviet countries was ultimately aided by western imperialist's raw ambitions for world domination. quote: 2)Enforcing advantageous terms of trade for the empirial centre;
The "advantageous terms" were required to rebuild Russia after the war of annihilation had reduced Russian cities to rubble and devastated male working population. Russia bartered with COMECON block of what were essentially developing nations, like Cuba and Vietnam and more often at a trade disadvantage with oil and other raw materials and humanitarian aid sent to those countries in return for food staples. Any fool realizes this was the case after 1991 when North Korea and Cuba could not afford to buy oil and resources at world market prices. quote: 3)Overthrowing any government there which opposes your ideas for its internal or external policies,
quote: ""From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair." -- William Blum
[ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 August 2007 12:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: In other words when the Russians to threw Jan Masaryk out of a window, blockaded West Berlin, invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia and propped up the German UNDemocratic Republic when they decided to build the Berlin Wall - it was all OK because the US did bad things also???
No, I'm saying that after U.S. and German corporations armed Hitler to the eye-teeth while capitalism was flat on its ass at home, the very fascist Nazis and corporate-sponsors tried to make with the lebensraum of Russia as well as Eastern Europe. The Soviets merely moved the line of defence west by a layer of previously Nazi-occupied countries, one of which was handed to Hitler by Chamberlain and Daladier. and that's what bugged hell out of fascist sympathizers like yourself for many years. ETA: In fact, the nephew of former British SIS chief, Stuart Menzies, said his uncle suffered nighmares for many years until his death. Apparently he threw a Soviet mole out of a plane over the English channel to his death below because he wouldn't confess to "the truth." Bugged hell out of him. Hundreds of scientists and intellectuals fell out of windows and airplanes during the cold war. Death by open windows were a specialty of the CIA, SIS, MI6 etc. [ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 August 2007 02:57 PM
Operation Paperclip Casefile: the documented evidence quote: One of the most important of all CIA operations began before the agency was even born. Many Nazi leaders realized they were going to lose World War II and started negotiating with the US behind Hitler's back about a possible future war against the USSR. In 1943, future CIA Director Allen Dulles moved to Bern, Switzerland to begin back-channel talks with these influential Nazis. Officially, Dulles was an agent of the OSS (the Overseas Secret Service, the CIA's predecessor) but he wasn't above pursuing his own agenda with the Nazis, many of whom he had worked with before the war. Indeed, as a prominent Wall Street lawyer, Dulles had a number of clients- Standard Oil, for one-who continued doing business with the Nazis during the war.
[General Reinhard] Gehlen wasn't nearly the only Nazi war criminal employed by the CIA. There was Klaus "the Butcher of Lyon" Barbie, Otto von Bolschwing (Eichmann's right hand), SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny and thousands more. It's even said there is evidence that Martin Bormann faked his death and fled to Latin America by the ratlines where he worked with various CIA sub-groups. Harder? Or colder?. [ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 August 2007 07:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: so what? Is this supposed to be justification for making all of eastern Europe spend 45 years under fascist Soviet rule?
And where did you go to school? Or were you truant most of the time ?. The Red Army liberated Eastern Europe from fascist rule. ~~ 27, 000, 000 to 30, 000, 000 dead Russians ~~ 50, 000, 000 to 83, 000, 000 dead and missing altogether at the end of WWII So Yes. Yes the Soviets did use all those fucking zeros as justification for moving the line of defence westward, you idiot. All those zeroes figured large during cold war animosities. Was the red menace justification for what has been a Latin American holocaust and U.S. military invasions and propping up of more than 36 brutal right-wing dictatorships around the world?. [ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 03 August 2007 08:06 PM
Nobody in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc... asked to be occupied by Russia and to have millions of their people sent to forced labour camps.To people on Poland, German occupation simply replaced with Russian occupation and colonization. No country suffered more per capita at the hands of the Nazis than Poland and their reward was to be ruled by Soviet puppets and to have the Russians strip the country of everything of value. Who could forget how in 1944, the Poles staged a massive uprising in Warsaw. The Russians of course had no interest in having any rebellion against Germany succeed unless it was run by their puppets, so the Russians sat across the river from Warsaw and spectated while the Germans killed another million Poles and bombed Warsaw back to the Stone Age. I believe that the PEOPLE of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria had a right to vote on whether or not they felt like being reduced to "part of Russia's line of defence" and turned into captive nations. Only a totally brainwashed Stalinist could seriously support Russia imperialist conquest of eastern Europe in direct contravention of the will of its people.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 August 2007 08:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Then after the war, the viciously anti-semitic Russians and their Polish puppets staged more pogroms to kill of the few Polish Jews that the Nazis didn't manage to kill.
Collaboration with the Nazis is said to have been a problem in Poland and several other occupied countries. Over 90 percent of Polish Jews were murdered by the Nazis. The Russians told Silesians they could not speak German anymore. Many German Poles fled to Czechoslovakia. And, I'm sorry to say, some of Stalin's most willing executioners were high ranking Jews.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640
|
posted 03 August 2007 08:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Then after the war, the viciously anti-semitic Russians and their Polish puppets staged more pogroms to kill of the few Polish Jews that the Nazis didn't manage to kill.
That's not quite correct Stockholm. I'm no fan of Stalinism and my family lived through Stalinist occupation but the fact is that the Soviets did not have the degree of control in Poland immediately after the war that you imagine. It took a few years to consolidate that authority. There is no evidence that the Soviets were complicit in the pogroms in Poland in 1945. Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence that the pogroms were the result of anti-Communist sentiment by some Poles due to the perception that Jews had a leading role in the Polish Communist Party. The 1946 Kielce pogrom is more problematic as it did include local elements of the militia and police but despite exhaustive searching of documents there's no evidence of any Soviet collusion. It was more likely the result of longstanding anti-Semitism - the Church, for instance, refused to condemn the pogrom and while not endorsing them either, claimed it was the result of rumours of Jews killing Polish babies and of Jews taking "prominent positions" in Polish society. The anti-Semitic campaign of the late 1960s is a different matter though and that was clearly and official government campaign. Jews had quite a lot of reasons to view the Red Army as liberators - they literally did liberate Jews from concentration camps in Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe and even anti-Communist Jews gave the Red Army credit for saving them. [ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 August 2007 09:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: It's actually highly debatable as to who killed more people Hitler or Stalin - no wonder they got along so well when they signed the non-aggression pact of 1939 and plotted to dismember Poland together and and carve up Europe between them. Stalin only decided he didn't like Hitler when Hitler double-crossed him in 1942
I believe historians will tell you the Nazis were the most efficient, most deliberate killers over a shorter period of time. " " real historians will also tell you there was no trust whatsoever between Stalin and western leaders leading up to Molotov-Ribbentrop I or II. Stalin trusted Hitler the least. Nobody believed the Russians were prepared for war least of all Churchill and Roosevelt. After scrapping Lenin's NEP, "Stalin" ordered secret munitions factories and steel works built and churning out parts for everything from farm tractors for the Ukraine(which the Kulaks sabotaged) to tanks and Stalin's organs. As the Nazis laid siege to Stalingrad, Leningrad and were stopped a few dozen miles away from Moscow, hundreds of thousands of Russian men, women and children packed up munitions factories and equipment and carried the pieces on horseback and on foot over the frozen Urals. There the pieces were reassembled and set in motion to feed the resistance.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 03 August 2007 09:33 PM
aka Mycroft: It's too obvious. It makes no sense to him. He defines his world by good and evil, and fits everything into that.NDP and Israel = Good. Communism (in all its manifestations - including non-communists and anti-communists on babble!!!) and those who question Israel: Evil. Now, find me a post that doesn't fit that algorithm.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640
|
posted 03 August 2007 09:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: ...and if it hadn't been for the British and Canadians and Americans, Germany would have probably defeated Russia and there would have been no liberation. Britain stood alone against Hitler for several years while Stalin was busy filing his nails and trying to colonize Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia and Finland (the latter unsuccessfully)
Yeah and had Stalin not unleashed the purges and liquidated a good share of his own general staff as a result the Soviet Union wouldn't have had to make peace with Nazi Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and would have been able to either resist the German invasion when it happened or pre-empted it with their own attack. I make no apologies for Stalinism or for the post-Stalin soviet system but, really, despite all the propaganda, it was preferable to live under Stalin than to live under Hitler. Certainly living under Khruschev, Brezhnev et al was hands down preferable to Hilter and his gang. [ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 03 August 2007 09:35 PM
I think it is far preferable to live under Roosevelt or Churchill or Mackenzie King than to live under Hitler OR Stalin.We don't have to choose between arsenic and strychnine! Hitler was in a class of his own in terms of evil (along with Pol Pot etc...) but I would say that life under Brezhnev and Krushchev was probably comparable to life under Franco or Pinochet. [ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640
|
posted 03 August 2007 09:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: I think it is far preferable to live under Roosevelt or Churchill or Mackenzie King than to live under Hitler OR Stalin.We don't have to choose between arsenic and strychnine!
The point is Stockolm, you're equating Soviet rule and Nazi Germany based on Cold War propaganda and not reality. [ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 August 2007 09:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: ...and if it hadn't been for the British and Canadians and Americans, Germany would have probably defeated Russia and there would have been no liberation.
Not true. Stalin made several backdoor visits to Churchill and Roosevelt begging them for a second front over two years. 400 thousand Russians were buried under the rubble at Stalingrad. They were reduced to eating cats, dogs, rats, and even frozen corpses near the end in Leningrad. Then, about 50 thousand Red Army soldiers and Jewish partisanis reached deep within themselves and fought back against the fascist enemy at the gates. This was a turning point in the war and setting the stage for the meeting at Casablanca. The western leaders knew then that the Russians could liberate Europe by themselves. The race to Berlin was on. Look it up sometime when you're not foaming at the mouth and can think straight. quote: Britain stood alone against Hitler for several years ...
? My mother and many Brits stood "alone" against Nazi Germany's bombing raids and V2 rocket attacks for about a year, if I recall what she told me. The Canadians(my father and uncles, too) were stationed in England and The Yanks were chomping at the bit to fight fascism but didn't arrive til late '42. They were in on the invasion of Italy, but dad and le regiment de trois rivieres were there in N. Africa in 1939-40 with Montgomery's eighth army. [ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640
|
posted 03 August 2007 09:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: The fact that the Soviets were not quite as bad as the Nazis, still doesn't excuse all the Soviet atrocities in Eastern Europe (ie: the Slansky trials in Prague, shooting people going over the Berlin Wall, forced labour camps, invasion of Hungary and Czech....etc...etc...etc...)So far the only justification i keep hearing for the Soviet atrocities is "Hitler was even worse" so what?
Well, I think "not quite as bad as the Nazis" is still an exaggeration but you're right, it doesn't excuse Soviet repression, 1953, 1956, 1968 etc or for that matter the toxic effect Soviet Communism had on the socialist movement and the left internationally. I think though that we in the West too often forget that yes, in 1945 the Red Army really were liberators and yes, their success on the Eastern Front was an enormous achievement. We especially forget this when we see US movies that pretend the US won WWII single handidly.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 August 2007 10:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: The Russians had no interest in helping Britain in 1940 and 1941 by opening a second front - they were too busy having a feeding frenzy divvying up Poland and Baltic states with Hitler.
The "front" quickly became the Nazi's focus of operation barbarossa in June '41 and the opening up of the Eastern front. Hitler poured an estimated two-thirds of his corporate-sponsored military machine into the heart of Russia. quote: The allies also begged Russia to open up a second front against Japan, but Stalin couldn't be bothered.
The official claim is that neither Roosevelt or Churchill believed Russia could be any meaningful military ally in an alliance against the Nazis, hence the Munich appeasement. Stalin called on the western leaders for a second front for over two years. After the tables were turned on the Nazis at Leningrad and Stalingrad, Stalin pounded his fist on the table at Casablanca and demanded a second front. And it happened. The western leader's believed in the beginning the Nazis would occupy the Kremlin in about six weeks time. At Casablanca, they realized the Soviets could liberate Europe on their own. The race to Berlin was on. And aka Mycroft and unionist are telling you the truth as well. Look it up for yourself. You should have been in class that week instead of the smoking area. [ 03 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 04 August 2007 04:28 AM
From much earlier in this thread ... Red baiting and pathological anti-communism are one thing. There's been plenty of that going on around here, as babbler Cueball pointed out a few times. But comparing a babbler to a Nazi crosses the line, I think. quote: jeff house: Did you know that trying to delegitimize people based on their status is an old Stalinist trick?The Nazis did it too, of course, because intellectuals make poor party members. Since you've done it twice here, I presume it is a conscious tactic. But when you guys hide your identities, it is really despicable.
All this, over the meaning of the word "imperialism".
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 August 2007 09:44 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
...and you'd be wrong. Just the Russian invasion and conquest of Hungary alone in 1956 is estimated to have led to TEN of THOUSANDS of on the spot executions, plus people sent to prison camps in Siberia who were never heard from again.
Yes, all that on the heels of the west murdering over 3, 000, 000 Koreans during a UN police action on the peninsula!. Stockholm, the west didn't de-escalate the cold war after the Berlin wall fell. Cold war leaders in the west had neither the imagination or the will to fold up cold war Keynesian militarism for the sake of global peace and prosperity after the dissolution of the USSR. Instead the hawks stepped up cold war maneuvering in Eastern Asia, Africa and Latin America. There are still more than 700 U.S. military bases around the world. The SOA is still open for business, and the CIA-NSA-military still spends more U.S. taxpayer's money on public-private partnerships (socialism for the rich), black ops and secret prisons for torture around the world than most countries spend on running their countries each year. It just never ends.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 04 August 2007 10:51 AM
But Stockholm, just as the word "empire" can be defined to exclude anything done by the Soviet Union and its fixers, the word "killed" can be similarly restrictively defined.The whole methodology is based on the idea: "OK, let's criticize YOU, but never ME." The criticisms may be correct, but it's so one-sided! The second consequence is that the critic does not learn anything about his own errors and misdeeds, so they will be repeated endlessly. We see this daily on babble.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 August 2007 11:22 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
The fact that the "west" might have also done some bad things is no excuse.
You are the only poster here mouthing the words, "So what?." The American Expeditionary Force to Vladivostok immediately following the October Revolution, and the 25 international armies of fixers to restore power to the Tsar didn't say, "So what!" They were very proactive in their attempts to restore things to the way they were. And when that didn't work, western industrialists and the Wall Street cabal aided and abetted a madman who wanted to restore the old order to a Kaiser-led Germany. And Boris Yeltsin made mention of hundreds of USAF pilots shot down over the USSR and POWs from the Korean and Vietnam wars. The American cold war POW's sitting in Russian gulags were kept quiet by the "Liberal" news media. The doctor and the madman bombed Cambodia and Vietnam to kill an idea and murdered millions in the process. The cold war atrocities committed by both principles of the cold war were not mutually exclusive or done without careful consideration of past aggressions. There is no more USSR. And yet, the U.S. is the only superpower to have nuclear missiles positioned in other countries. There are more than 700 U.S. military bases around the world and in Europe, supposedly to continue protecting them from a cold war threat that doesn't exist. The SOA is still open for business and exporting terror and torture to Latin America. And the largest incarcerated population in the world is a dubious honour bestowed on our largest trading partners. And the U.S. has given predatory capitalism a new meaning in Iraq and Central Asia since dissolution of the USSR. Who is the number one imperialist aggressor in the world today ?. [ 04 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 04 August 2007 12:07 PM
Oh right. We should choose "the number one imperialist aggressor" and then rain contempt down upon that entity.Here's the problem with that, gang: As Rosa L's post shows, the party of Stalin is still out there, and has learned nothing in its hundred-year fiasco existence. Of course, its prime effect these days is to wreck the democratic left by pretending to be part of it; and turning babble into a laughing-stock will also work well. So, when the Soviet Empire Excuse Gang start their one-sided pointing at everyone else, with NEVER a thought to why their communism was a disaster, we say, show us that you have learned some lessons. Show us that you can learn from the history of your party and its colossal failures. Until then, you can be sure that as long as you think Stalin was The Great Leader, we will return and return to his crimes, and your complicity in them.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921
|
posted 04 August 2007 12:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: Oh right. We should choose "the number one imperialist aggressor" and then rain contempt down upon that entity.Here's the problem with that, gang: As Rosa L's post shows, the party of Stalin is still out there, and has learned nothing in its hundred-year fiasco existence. Of course, its prime effect these days is to wreck the democratic left by pretending to be part of it; and turning babble into a laughing-stock will also work well. So, when the Soviet Empire Excuse Gang start their one-sided pointing at everyone else, with NEVER a thought to why their communism was a disaster, we say, show us that you have learned some lessons. Show us that you can learn from the history of your party and its colossal failures. Until then, you can be sure that as long as you think Stalin was The Great Leader, we will return and return to his crimes, and your complicity in them.
You misunderstood me. Beyond that, I don't think this kind of thing deserves a response.
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 04 August 2007 10:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by John K:
I rather think that, whatever its faults, civilization creates the conditions for a more - not less - egalitarian society.
You might think so, but if you follow the history of civilization you will find a history of conquest, colonization, war, slavery, oppression, repression, tyranny, genocide, and extermination.Civilization requires expansion for the extraction of resources to fuel expansion. Yes, it is a vicious circle. Empire is an expression of civilization. Without the hinterland to provide slaves (cheap labour) and resources, the homeland would wither and die. What we have achieved in this era, however, is the culmination of empire. A global empire in a world of diminishing resources. There is nowhere left to go. The argument over which branch of Western Civilization is most evil is inane. Ask the first nations which empire is most evil. Ask the Armenians. Ask the Irish. Ask the Africans. Ask the Ukrainians. Nazism and fascism was just another branch of Western Civilization. It is Western Civilization that exports war, violence, and death all over the planet. You and I, Jeff House, and Stockholm, and Fidel, all net beneficiaries of Western Civilization. We live on land once held by peoples who at best have been herded into reservations and who have grievances outstanding more than 100 years or, at worst, have been extinguished. I know the first nations people who lived on the land where my home is are no more. We live in homes populated with electronic gadgets made in Asian sweatshops, our clothes are likely sewn by young women in Latin American or Asia who work long hours under grueling conditions for pennies, our cars and homes are made from materials removed from ecologically destructive strip mines in countries all over the world where indigenous populations have been forced from their lands to ghettos around cities where they become cheap labour for factories churning out products for western markets. In almost every country nations that once sustained their populations with subsistence farming, have now driven their rural populations from the land to convert the fields to giant plantations to grow food for export markets while malnutrition, thirst and disease haunt growing, festering slums surrounding cities expanding like cancers all over the globe. And we fill those cars with fuel taken from under the feet of the poorest people all over the world or we smash ancient civilizations to take it from them. Of course it is never for resources that we conquer nations but to 'liberate them' or "bring them democracy' or, as under the British Empire and more truthfully expressed, to "civilize" them which, of course, meant to enslave and exploit them for all they have. There is nothing civilized about Western Civilization. We think ourselves advanced and justified in our actions because by chance we were born on the right side of the equatorial tracks. And we blame all the atrocities we can on them while we excuse the atrocities upon which our own good fortune is founded on accidents of history and unfortunate events for which we can't be held responsible. It is all water under the bridge, you know? We must acknowledge the facts on the ground and move on. Suck it up. [ 04 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|