Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
Forum Index » Discussion » Current Events » Why did Russia block the UN resolution on Syria? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ][ Next ]
 09 Feb 2012, 21:34
Quote: How much impact do you expect 600 Libyan troops to make? Quote: I will concede that they did screw the Bahraini rebels over but I would say this was a special case due to the presence of the US naval base and fleet there. With Egypt and Yemen they didn't stand in the way of Mubarak and Saleh being ousted. Quote: The Muslim Brotherhood were the most organised opposition to the Mubarak regime and thus best placed to have an impact on the elections. If secular parties have/had time to organise and promote their messages then we may not see an Egypt dominated by the Brotherhood. Quote: I'm not so sure anymore. Certainly during the Cold War the US didn't give a shit about democratic regimes so long as they were anti-communist. Now I think we can see that the regimes it wants in place have to be democratic and with respect for human rights (look at US aid restrictions on African nations which abuse human rights). Quote: Not that I could find. Even if he had I've no idea how such a figure could be accurately gauged. Quote: You know what I mean. The people of Syria cannot choose their government, they cannot take their government to account over grievances, they cannot freely express opinions, publish material deemed unacceptable by the government, or publicaly protest against their government. There are reports of political prisoners, unfair trials, and police brutality. Also, a lot of people on here seem to be talking up Syria's economic success under Assad and his distribution of wealth. I'm no expert but taking a look at the Wikipedia page here doesn't make for particulalry encouraging reading. Would you like to provide some sources which you think accurately portrays the success of Asssad's economic policies? Quote: But why are you so sure Syria is defending the interests of its people? It began implementing liberalising reforms several years before the uprising with increased privatisation. It does not appear to be a particularly wealthy country. Quote: I'm not sure this is the case. The US knows what radical Islam is capable of now. They wouldn't be too stupid to allow them to try it again. Quote: His eldest son was originally the designated successor. Sure it's not officially a monarchy but it is a de facto one (like North Korea). It is remnants of feudalism like this that need to be destroyed. Quote: And yet South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all show it can be done (admittedly, after many years - but no-one says this will be a quick and easy process). Other countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia are progressing along this route. Their bourgeois revolution have been completed (which is a good thing). 09 Feb 2012, 23:01
gRed Britain wrote: The 'special case' justification is the kind a White House spokesman might cynically make if he were to answer truthfully to reporters' questions. As to Egypt and Yemen, it is no harm to Washington if the new regime taking power from their old ally also becomes their ally. As I've said it actually provides at least short term stability given that the peoples' revolutionary fervor has been temporarily slaked. gRed Britain wrote: Syria is not a oil rich country, and they have had to spend much on the military to fend off Israel, Turkey and Iraq, but there are economic and social guarantees in line with the principles of Arab socialism, and women's rights are more secure there than probably anywhere in the region. Syria has not been able to totally resist the processes of globalization and these processes direction by groups like the IMF, especially without a strong ally like the USSR around to back them up, and so liberal economic reforms have been slowly and haltingly carried out. Still, as Aurelian said, the kind of leverage a new regime in Damascus would have in the event of the overthrow of Assad would be minimal, and a grateful pro-Western government will undertake all kinds of reforms and buyouts to satisfy their new master, all at the expense of ordinary people, if not the elites. gRed Britain wrote: It might be stupid, but it is already happening, and was occurring under cynical pretenses even during the war on terror (with the US alliance with Saudi Arabia being the most shining example). US willingness to work with 'moderate Taliban' in Afghanistan, with the Muslim Brotherhood and with Sunni kingdoms in the region are all signs of a return of the Cold War status quo, except strengthened and empowered because there is no one supporting the secular nationalist socialist counterweight anymore. gRed Britain wrote: I agree, and in light of this the Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton political dynasties in the US must also go. gRed Britain wrote: These occurred under completely different historical circumstances. In Japan formal democracy was established while the Zaibatsu and a corporatist culture remained and thrived. In South Korea, political conditions among powerful neighbours (the weakening and destruction of the Soviet bloc) helped to convince the old regime and its allies that change was acceptable and not life-threateningly dangerous. In Taiwan, there are many who critique the country for its form of procedural democracy -i.e. not even fully functional bourgeois democracy. Personally, I am not of the view that a benevolent dictatorship in the third world is any worse even than a fully functioning bourgeois democracy, given the reality of capital controlling the media, capital (usually foreign) controlling and exploiting the nation's industrial, agricultural and resource wealth, and courts normally siding with big business, and the real differences between dominant political groups usually being mere 'window dressing'. In such a situation, a benevolent democratically elected leader would be severely pressured to avoid things that might be in the interests of ordinary people, like nationalizing an oil industry or spending too much of the budget on social services. "The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
10 Feb 2012, 00:49
Quote: To make it clear, I'm not justifiying or excusing what happened in Bahrain; the Saudi's are even more reactionary than the US. Quote: Well as I said, I'm not convinced the Syrian state does provide that much for its people. While it may have better women's rights than Saudi Arabia, is that a good reflection on Syria or a bad reflection on Saudi Arabia? Most countries have better women's rights than Saudi but that doesn't necessarily justify all their government policies. Quote: Saudi is something of an exception because the House of Saud has such longstanding ties with the US. While internally it is quite Islamist the rulers are politically savvy enough to realise it is pointless to try and spread this Islamism abroad. I think overall the US is not a fan of Islamism and will not be a fan of it for quite a while. I definitely don't see them supporting the Islamist wing of the Syrian rebels. Quote: Well yes in the sense that all political leaders must go (one of our ultimate objectives as communists), but I don't see why someone should be denied the opportunity to be elected simply because they are the son or daughter of a former president. Remember, Assad was placed in power by political elites, the Kenned's Bushes and Clintons (ok George Bush jr is a bit suspect ) were democratically elected. Quote: South Korea was established under US influence and supervision who soon afterwards intervened in the Korean civil war to maintain its existence. While it remained a dictatorship for many years it is now a fully functioning bourgeois democracy, is highly industrialised and has a very high standard of living. This is what developing countries should be aiming for. People need to develop from feudalism along capitalist lines. Sure, we all want to see the proletarian revolution and socialism, but this is designed to be built upon the ashes of capitalist society. We have seen semi-feudal states try and build socialism and it has never worked. They either collapse into a full-on bourgeois government or the communist party remains in power but encourages capitalism (i.e. China). The trouble these days in developing a bourgeois society is that Western imperialism always wants to be involved. Whilst the West never had a capitalist country breathing down their necks and stimulating them to industrialise, countries like Syria have. I am now somewhat resigned to the fact that many developing countries have to embrace Western imperialism for a while in order to modernise. China still seeks US capital to spur its economic development but it is now becoming more of a rival than a dependent of US capital. US imperialism is fuelling its own destruction through its overseas investments as it helps develop countries into rivals, not subjects. With Syria, I'm just not sure they are ready for socialism. In any case, I think Assad realised that before the rebellion with his market reforms. Quote: That is because capitalism is needed first. Sad but true. Only once the means of production are developed to a much higher level can such reforms have a strong impact. 10 Feb 2012, 01:13
Quote: No.While China can be considered a rival of the US when it comes to influence in different 2nd and 3rd world countries,the US and China are too connected to be real rivals.They're imperialist powers which form an imperialist block against national independence stuggles and proletarian revolution. China has embraced US capital and these two countries became mutually intertwined in amazing ways.China sold out to American capital and it might even gain an upper hand over the US in some time.The US imperialism is not fueling its own destruction because imperialist can be destroyed by the working class,it's just perpetuating and "reinventing" itself. 
Soviet cogitations: 3116
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Party Bureaucrat 10 Feb 2012, 04:36
gRed Britain wrote: The US never cared for human rights when they get in the way of its "national" interest. Look at Guantanamo. They keep trying to overthrow Chavez, one of the most democratic governments in the continent. They supported the coup in Honduras. How's that for support of democracy? 10 Feb 2012, 05:01
@ Che Burashka:
Or better yet, look at how the U.S. props up Saudi Arabia, a country that is pretty much as backward as the Russian Empire was. 10 Feb 2012, 16:31
gRed Britain wrote: If they send 600 now, who is to say when they will not send more? The point is Libyan Transitional Council, Syrian Transitional Council, the collusion between the two groups is spelled out. Quote: You are the greatest imperialist apologist I've ever heard. America has the power to do what it wants, when it acts against certain groups of people rebelling and supports others we need to question the motives behind such actions. There is this liberal impression that America accidentally does all these things that are regrettable, but unforeseeable. Quote: Thats a sad excuse, thats like me saying had the communists been given more money and time in Canada they would have won. yes, IF ONLY. What is Freedom House and Endowment for Democracy doing in Egypt exactly? The weak stance, if we can say that, of the United States on Egypt has not been conducive to people supporting an American-backed party. Why would they? Mubarak kept a lid on things, ie people were not happy with Israel and he kept a stable peace. Obviously the Americans did not want to get rid of him, however in order to do some 'spring cleaning' they needed to get rid of him as he used up his usefulness. I'm not saying that the Egypt revolution was not that, but I do think had the US wanted it would have come to the rescue, it just decided it was not worth it. The present situation is not what they wanted with the election, but the issue here is when the election happened. It could have happened a few months after Mubarak stepped down, why do you doubt the US has the power to force such change? The military in power is not a bad thing for the US, is it? Its certainly preferable to the Muslim Brotherhood. I think we need to consider things here in America's interests, why is it acting this way? Its entirely rational and has nothing to do with democracy insofar as it may be used as a buzzword dropped in here and there. Quote: If you have any illusions about what determines aid to African nations you need only look at their UN voting record, there is no statistical way of analyzing support of human rights and american aid because they don't add up. Equatorial Guinea, Burkina Faso, D.R. Congo. Honestly, if you are ignoring D.R. congo right now you are no better than BBC news anchors, disingenuous as frag. The difference between now and then is public relations, do you really think people in Congo believe the US is supporting democracy there? They supported Mobutu, and now they support Kabila, and shit has not improved. American policy is consistent, which is why it can be studied and you can relate it to history and their imperial interests. We both know we are not talking about some rich country aiding a poor country, there are strings attached first of all, and second, no matter how 'beneficial' the trade agreements to the US, ie Libya, an intervention is still better in their mine. When the US begins trading fairly with all nations, then we can talk about "democracy" and "human rights." If the Arab spring reveals anything it is the inherent hypocrisy of American rhetoric and policy, I mean this is common knowledge. Quote:That's true, but your argument is that support should be for a new liberal democratic regime, because people can publish things. How evil is the regime there, have you been following stories on Voltaire Network, globalresearch, RT... There are other views on this you know. I'm not convinced that would be a good thing to install a more American-friendly regime, don't we have enough of those? I don't disagree they should change some things, its not perfect, but you also have to base some of this against economic realities. Do people want to have more rights to publish things, or do they want to have a regime that is not a bunch of pro-American elites, and not a democracy, less distribution. All of these regimes moving toward neo-liberalism are already struggling against forces of US international finance capital and other aggressions, so we need to keep that in perspective too. They are often still retaining much more social welfarist policies than other countries, thats why they are enemies, they are not reforming as fast or as much as the US would lik.e "The present is a time of struggle; the future is ours."
10 Feb 2012, 18:36
Quote: I don't think Libya is really in a position to be sending vast numbers of mercenaries into a foreign conflict at the moment. Quote: I'm not apologising for anything. I think it is a bad thing that the US/Saudis pulled the plug on the Bahraini rebels. And I think it's wrong for you to say America can do what it wants. Obviously this is not the case as they would have defeated the Taliban by now. Quote: D.R. Congo is a dump but you can hardly blame that all on Kabila's government. "Promoting the rule of law is a key long-term priority in the DRC as the judiciary continues to suffer from a lack of independence, resources and public trust, leaving the most vulnerable members of society with no recourse for justice. Despite these challenges incremental changes have made steps toward greater judicial independence and effectiveness. With USAID support, the Judicial Council adopted its internal regulations and drafted a five-year strategic plan and the Ministry of Justice adopted a new organizational structure, streamlining functions and clarifying management responsibilities." - http://www.usaid.gov/westafrica/health/globalfund.htm If we look at the aid stats to D.R. Congo from 2007-2009 (and predicting up to 2011) then a grand total of half a million dollars was spent as military training aid to the Congolese government in 2009 (around 0.15% of total aid given). $1.5 million was spent on narcotics control and law enforcement (0.45%). Most of the aid (43.9%) was spent on humanitarian assistance. Hardly propping up a dictatorship are they? It's not as if US aid is channelling arms to the Kinshasa government (which has been democratically elected by the way - admittedly questionably, but it's a big step forward for DRC nonetheless). http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saha ... drc_fs.pdf Look at Zimbabwe. Notice how US aid more than doubled after the power-sharing agreement was concluded in 2009? Obviously I'm assuming you aren't one of the fools on this board who think Mugabe is a good person. Quote: And how do you expect this to happen? How do you expect the people of D.R. Congo to just overthrow Western imperialism? They barely have a road network in their country and most people lack anything but the most rudimentary education! Imperialism isn't going to stop out of the kindness of its heart. The only way forward is for them to try and manipulate imperialism to their own advantage. Look at India and China: imperialism has invested so much on those countries that they are now becoming a rival to US imperialism, not a subject of it. Even Ghana is developing thanks to developing bourgeois government and taking advantage of imperialist investment. Quote: People can publish things, people can say what they want, people can take the government to account for corruption and other grievances, people can have a fair trial, people can vote in political parties, people aren't at risk of arbitrary detention and being tortured by the police, you know, all the things I'm guessing you enjoy but are deliberately taking for granted in this discussion... Quote: They are going to have elites regardless and they don't have a democracy anyway. Do you think Syria at the moment does not have elites? They will have elites until the proletarian revolution. If one set of elites is going to offer all the things I mentioned above, I expect they would support them. I'm sure Syria would like to be South Korea in terms of political and economic development. Quote: This is what I find so frustrating among many people on this board. They see a tiny bit of welfarism in a poorer country and immediately see "socialism!" Denmark has a better welfare system than Syria but I bet you don't care about the "socialism" there. Nationalisation does not equal socialism. We have to examine Syria dialectically - i.e. it's development along the lines of histomat. Capitalism cannot be avoided, it is essential if Syria is to one day build socialism. At the moment, Syria needs to complete its bourgeois revolution and develop its capitalism. Having a bit of a welfare state isn't going to progress Syria towards socialism. Instead, it will remain stuck like it is now because it lacks the means of production to fully extend its welfare state. Now, because Syria is not a poor African country as discussed earlier, it may be able to implement liberal democracy whilst having enough wealth to retain some of its welfarism. In time it could improve and extend it. So there, political democracy leading to a fully accountable bourgeois government. I don't care how this is done, if Assad does it through reforms (a la Burma) then there is no need for a rebellion. But defending everything the Syrian government does just because it has a crumbling welfare state is idiotic. 10 Feb 2012, 19:04
gRed Britain wrote: Really? America does not like the Taliban? Thats news to me. They have been so interested in working with them in the past... What the frag man, I never said "Imperialism would stop out of the kindness of its heart" I'm saying exactly the opposite. Mugabe is a hero to many Africans because he is the only leader to successfully redistribute land. If you fall for the BBCs bullshit I suggest you take a look at the work of Mahmood Mamdani, Sam Moyo, Prosper Mathondi, and since I know you would rather some white British guy's word on it, check out Ian Scoones. Have you even read Neo-Colonialism by Nkrumah? It puts all your arguments to rest. There is manufacturing of various degrees in different African countries, much of it (Namibia, S. Africa, Zimbabwe) is thanks to apartheid governments which never intended to grant independence and make "white mans country" how does this fit into your trajectory? Give it a rest man, we may live in a 'democracy,' but it is a dictatorship of capital. Alternative viewpoints are actively suppressed, its a panoptic function and even people who are not leftists have identified this trend in propaganda Jacques Ellul, Michel Foucault, Chomsky, Herman. We don't participate in decision making, and in fact are discouraged from the day we are born. People can vote for political parties that are subservient to capital, sure... ok. I like how you ignored looking up any independent media, afraid what non-corporate tainted information would reveal? Further, I never said Syria did not have elites. Why do you assume everyone wants to be like South Korea? The massive amounts of US aid pumped in there was important, but more important was the protectionist economic policies which allowed their industries to flourish. You do realize that not every country has the same favourable terms of trade the US grants South Korea? Thats such an imperialist argument to use, South Korea did it so everyone else can. Denmark and Syria are not comparable, and no one made that comparison.That bit of socialism means something to millions of people who if it were not there would be doing materially worse, you can't separate yourself from these economic facts. The issue with a western-supported liberal democratic regime is that it would result in a less powerful government to be able to subsidize necessities and food etc for the poor. Liberal democracy, maybe it is a necessary stage, but its impossible without being attached to Western demands at this point. You don't think the fact that Libya now gives better profits to Western firms and they get the reconstruction concessions some way was related to them bombing the country to pieces and helping a new group to power? Where is the 'democracy' in any of that? When you sit on this forum and propose bombing/invading a country the best way to solve the problem you aren't any better than American reasoning to drop the bomb on Japan. Come on, you're talking about people's lives here, you can be against Assad without supporting American-backed regime. Lets just not have any illusions that some great revolution to be independent of America or Iran is going to happen, thats just reality. If you have been following Iran just sent in 15,000 troops. Your calling DR a dump just demonstrates your standing, orientalism much? No one said it was all Kabila's fault, but if you look at American history with the Congo it has been consistently fragging it over, and that has not changed. Rwanda, and Uganda, both US allies have acted as proxies, and that has been very damaging, how are you ignoring that? How can you consider foreign aid a good thing? They are just creating markets for their goods, if they build the odd school thats great, but we all know thats not the intent of Foreign aid. I see what you are saying that Syria must go through stages, but if you concede that Assad should stay if he undergoes reforms then we are basically in agreement on that. My disagreement with you is your naivety on a) America's good intentions, and b) America's power in the world. NATO and the UN, and all these other institutions EXPAND american power. They get what they want, and when they don't, they do what they wanted anyway. I don't see whats so regressive about having social welfarist policies when we see water being privatized and people not being able to have life necessities, that is a much greater abrogation of human rights then not being able to post what you want on the internet. These american conglomerates which are the strings attached will propose shock therapy neo-liberalization of some form, and inflict much greater damage on the country and people than Assad ever could. Its not a black or white, we need to support US democracy as its the lesser evil. Its not at all. Please, the only sources you have provided as Wikipedia, New York Times, US Aid, and some Los Angeles newspaper, everyone else has provided many authors, articles, and figures from different sources. How can we have an objective discussion on Syria when all your information derives from the Washington consensus?? "The present is a time of struggle; the future is ours."
10 Feb 2012, 19:18
Aurelian wrote: Who is acting "wounded sparrow" now? I didn't call you an anti-communist; I only said that the act of systematically avoiding all contrary opinions is very remarkable for communists. Chill out man!! I'm glad that you did read it, but in that case, why was your first response to attack the source, rather than the argument, in some kind of conditioned reflex? Hey, never mind the message, let's just see if we can discredit the guy in a "connecting-the-dots" fashion: his article appeared on al-Jazeera and he teaches at a university in the US whose president (i.e. another person, not Massad) once invited Ahmadinejad to speak, but had the gall to criticise his views in the process (oh, the humanity!). I'm not sure what the sarcastic quip about the people behind Globalresearch.ca being academics as well was all about. I don't think everyone with an academic title is right. The fact is that for some "anti-imperialists" there is nothing that anyone (whether academics or journalists) can do right, just because they do not reach the same conclusions as the PSLs and Global Researches of this world. The US bombs the "anti-American" Al-Jazeera and tries to promote Al-Arabiya in its stead, but here it's considered an imperialist channel. Massad almost got hounded out by Zionist students for being "anti-Semitic", but according to one Aurelian of Soviet Empire, he's actually a "liberal imperialist", whatever that may be. Is a liberal imperialist a liberal who happens to back imperialism? Or is it someone who specifically backs "humanitarian" intervention? Because Massad is evidently none of these. I think your reading of the article is a bit off when you think that Massad was just paying lip service, as it were. The guy is actually condemning any calls for foreign intervention, so where exactly does the "liberal imperialist" thing come in? He is not "hoping for a third side" for the hell of it; he is actually saying that it is necessary for any kind of popular movement against any Arab despots to be independent of the imperialists and the "official opposition" in exile, because they cannot hope to win on the long term otherwise. I don't know what to say to the tangent about Venezuela and Ecuador. What does that have to do with anything? These countries obviously meet Massad's criterium of "fighting against domestic despotism and US imperialism simultaneously", regardless of what kind of slanders the US media and academics throw at them. We are in agreement on this. I think you've just somehow gotten it into your head that I or Massad consider approval by the US press and academia the most important criterium, rather than what we are actually saying. I also have no idea what a Chapters is. Massad doesn't directly mention Qatar's role, but he does talk about "the oil tyrannies of the Gulf and their US imperial master" and he criticises the bombing of Libya (which Qatar took part in), so the effect is the same. But of course you're seeing some dastardly conspiracy behind the fact that he doesn't mention them and the fact that Al-Jazeera is based in Qatar ("Coincidence? I think not!!!"). Massad doesn't mention the perfidious role of The Netherlands, Norway and Romania either, so maybe he's on the payroll of those countries as well. 10 Feb 2012, 21:15
Quote: Quote: Claiming to speak for Africans are you? And you call me Orientalist Quote: So you've decided I'm a white supremacist (based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever). If all you are resorting to is petty unfounded insults I can only assume it's because your argument has run its course. It always amazes me on this board how so many people are incapable of having a normal debate. As soon as someone disagrees with them they have to brand them with pejoratives as if they were denouncing a heretic. Grow the frag up. Quote: I never said there wasn't manufacturing. I pointed out how Ghana's manufacturing industry is growing. Quote: Obviously... Quote: Not where I live. I am free to post on this site, go and buy Marxist literature in shops, and attend meetings held by Marxist groups. I'm not denying the bourgeoisie uses propaganda and its monopoly on information dissemination to detract from viewpoints which conflict with their own but I wouldn't say Marxism is actively suppressed. Quote: Oh that's right. I forgot Syria is a worker's paradise with a fully functioning proletarian democracy and everybody outside the Western world knows about it and we would too if it weren't for the grand conspiracy generated by the Western media to tell lies about the government Syria. I don't believe everything I read in the corporate media, but that doesn't mean everything in it is automatically a lie. Quote: You said the Syrians wouldn't want a pro-American elite. My point is that it is somewhat irrelevant if the elites are pro-American as they will still be elites. Quote: Admittedly it is an unfounded assumption but I can't see why not. If you had the choice between living in Syria conditions and South Korean conditions, which would you choose? Quote: I'm saying it can be done because the alternative is that there is no way Syria can ever turn into a bourgeois democracy. That is what you seem to be implying; Syria must have a brutal dictatorship forever. Japan industrialised during the 19th and 20th centuries under pressure from US and European imperialism. Admittedly they didn't end up with a bourgeois democracy and we all know what happened. However, the measures undertaken by the governments during the Meiji and Taisho eras resulted in huge increases in living standards for the people. Quote: Speaking for millions of Syrians now? I think you need to reread Orientalism. Quote: Industrialisation has shown that people are ultimately lifted out of poverty (China anyone?). You can't build a successful welfare state if you don't have the industrial base to support it. Quote: Correct, though hopefully we can minimise the level of Western influence. Quote: I'm talking about bourgeois democracy, not proletarian democracy. I've never said the rebels will introduce that (or that the US would allow it to happen). Quote: More things I never said. Can I ask that you refrain from doing this as it only serves to cheapen your argument. Quote: Ideally, that is the best option. Quote: Exactly, so we have to choose which is more progressive dialectically. I would say a regime that introduces bourgeois democracy is best. My first choice would be Assad doing it via reforms but it doesn't look like he's too serious about that. Quote: No because I'm not speaking for Africans or homogenising them as weak, decadent, inferior, and voiceless. I called D.R. Congo a dump because it is a country with a huge number issues and with horrendous levels of poverty and internal violence. Quote: Well I think giving money to combat AIDS and disease is a good thing. Quote: If you mean keeping people alive so they can buy goods then yes, but I don't see how this is bad. Would you rather have people die from preventable diseases than grow up to purchase US commodities? Quote: Excellent. We are in agreement (so long as Assad is sincerely prepared to undertake reforms. I think we need to see some action there). Quote: I've never doubted b). With a) I think America wants to expand bourgeois democracy because it provides the best setting for capitalism to develop. America wants this because it results in a greater productive capacity for foreign goods (e.g. oil, technological goods, cheap manufactured goods), whilst also providing a greater market for American products. Richer countries can purchase more expensive products thus broadening the market in that sense. Quote: I'm not saying it's inherently regressive, I'm just saying it's not inherently progressive either. It is not an indicator of socialism and is still under the control of an elite. Also, how many people in Syria would be at risk of dying of thirst if the water was privatised? You're making it sound like wells being drained in sub-Saharan Africa. Quote: No-one has posted any sources with actual data or facts to back up claims, just a couple of op-eds. You yourself have a habit of making grand claims throughout this thread without supplying a shred of evidence to support them. I cited the LATimes purely because it provided transcripts of what Clinton and Obama actually said. I take it you think the US Aid figures are false: can you prove that? Bearing in mind those figures are released because US taxpayers want to see where their taxes are going in aid so I would like to think have been verified by an independent source. 10 Feb 2012, 21:21
Yes and since we are of course all know that imperialist-imposed bourgeois "democracy" (Gadafi's Libya was way more democratic tha it is now) is most certainly neccessary for further development we ought to support the NATO rebels overthrowing Assad's regime.
Sorry if i got you wrong,but that's what it seems you're saying. 10 Feb 2012, 22:18
Quote: The bourgeois revolution does not take place overnight. Sometimes it can take years or even decades for it to be fully implemented. It is no surprise that Libya and Egypt are not fully functioning democracies at the moment. Give them a few years and we'll see. I think the best option for Syria is if Assad institutes the reforms (I expect this would lead to his own resignation/booting out of office in the end) similar to what Burma is doing. This way the benefits of the bourgeois revolution are reaped but hopefully checks can be put in place against US influence. 11 Feb 2012, 19:30
Look man I can see you're very committed to al-Jazeera. Don't you see the contradiction in using a source that backs liberal democracy to then say its so evident that such a course would be better? That's weak.
Lol, I don't know where you get all these illusions that because you can buy marxist books you are now free. You don't think that with all the technology the government has they have a pretty good idea about you? Not a conspiracy, but anyway, for what its worth, here is an article on Syria, and it is cited: http://gowans.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/syrias-uprising-in-context/ "The present is a time of struggle; the future is ours."
11 Feb 2012, 19:48
I'm not claiming to speak for anyone, I'm just trying to highlight to you that there is a difference in opinion between what those in the West say is good for the world, and what they (as in having myself talked to, read interviews, watched segments, read articles, etc) as much as I've gathered. I'm not saying that people think exclusively one thing, But we all know it is in the best interest of BBC to villify Mugabe because they paid only 34 mil of the 2 billion they owed zim. The greatest crime of corporate media is not misinformation, but omission, they don't give you all the information. You must realize this? I call you an orientalist because the language you use, and now you quickly recoil and try and use the same label on me... British people tend to like Oxford, BBC, and I'm saying that from experience, take from it what you will, the guy is British so maybe you believe they have higher quality universities there (all rankings indicate thats true) whats your problem?
Relax man, you are not innocent to the labelling here. No one, not even the syrian government claimed to be what you are saying it is, some workers paradise. We both know that neither option, assad or western democracy, is ideal. That we can agree on. The crux here is whether a locally based elite or a foreign elite would be better for the country. If the wealth of literature published by the soft left on how international finance capital twists the arm demonstrates nothing else, it is the NEGATIVE effects of these regimes, how REAL development shrank simultaneously as the economy grew, and often times how economic growth was not guaranteed. There is great contradictions in their promotion of short term pain for long term gain, many nations have not recovered from the 1980s structural adjustment programs, likewise, when do we think Libya will achieve its 2011 standard of living? That country has gone from creditor to debtor, and is totally destroyed, the goals of foreign multinationals is not as much about building domestic industry, as it is putting a factory there that is not socially useful. Lets not forget the role of agro-industrial giants and trust funds taking the best land in Africa (do I need to source these things, I kind of thought this was common knowledge). Only when like-minded nations Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Angola start working together to trade amongst themselves is their going to be a better form of development, and we are seeing that with ALBA already. The trade agreements will be more advantageous, and they can collectively bargain with developed countries like has happened in the past, Latin America could have done so in the late 80s but missed out because of military comprador dictatorships. If local elites use economic nationalism to build the economy without as much foreign influence and with extending ties to other such governments it will overall be better. These governments are accountable to interests within the country, whereas leaders installed by the West, like in Libya or Cote D'Ivoire are relatively more committed to interests of US and France because of their principal-agent relationship. I'm not sure why ALBA, or African south-south trade is a bad thing? And why would bourgeois democracy be more efficient? Only when the ratio of anti-imperialist nations grows can it better fight imperialism, suggesting more nations should fall under the yoke of imperialism for everyone to eventually triumph is nice to suggest on a forum, but like you said, we are relatively free here, not everyone is. I don't think bourgeois democracies develop the same way everywhere, naturally because of the things demanded of these leaders via IMF conditionality. They don't have the means to retain a high level of popularity so they rely on American aid, in the form of 'democracy' aid which goes to propaganda that other leaders could not afford. Or it goes to building up a local military and police. This is what US AID does. They fund dissident press, or rather press to help a leader like Zenawi. These democracies much more resemble dictatorships because the leaders are subservient to US capital all the more because of how tenuous their rule is. There are shortcomings in Syria, Libya, but however I believe that had they expanded and say had a bigger bloc of Maghreb or Arab nations they could increase bargaining power and accomplish a lot more materially than bourgeois democracies. Your also forgetting that bourgeois democracies are more likely to cut food subsidies, and having food subisdies does not mean the country can't grow. I disagree with that, many nations have maintained social welfarist programs and grown at the same time. It is just part of IMF conditionality which is why you need a united front against that. The bigger enemy between Assad and the forces of international finance capital including the strong arm of NATO, I think it is easy to choose. Quote: There are a number of case studies in the late 1990s actually that do document cases of this, happened in Latin America, Bolivia specifically, as well.This is part of the neo-liberalization process to integrate new 'democracies' into the economic order. "The present is a time of struggle; the future is ours."
12 Feb 2012, 18:58
Quote: I never read al-Jazeera (and never even cited it), more unfounded accusations from you. Look, I'm not writing an academic paper. Forgive me for not hunting down the most obscure and independent sources just so I can reply to some guy on the internet. My points still stand. Quote: You said that alternative viewpoints in the West are actively suppressed. I was just pointing out that this is not true. I see active suppression as prohibition of access to certain information (books, newspapers, websites, etc) and state punishment for active involvement with non-tolerated viewpoints. None of this occurs in the West. In Syria, by contrast, communist parties which do not subscribe to the Baath Party's coalition restrictions are banned and their members face persecution. Quote: Possibly, but I am not actively persecuted for it. I've never been arrested or even informed that my actions are conflicting with the interests of the British state. Quote: Interesting article though I don't know why the author doesn't come out in support of the National Coordinating Body for Democratic Change in Syria. Quote: Yes Quote: I think you've lost the plot! I mean, what is that supposed to even mean? You clearly have no idea... Quote: Not content with calling me a white supremacist, you now imply I think British people are better than others? Newsflash: I don't think "British" people (or any other nationality) exist beyond people's imaginations. Quote: I was being sarcastic at how many defenders of Assad imply his regime is genuinely socialist and progressive. Quote: In terms of political structure, I don't have a problem with western democracy; it's just the level of western influence that accompanies it. Quote: No, because the elite will be a locally based elite in either outcome. The difference is, one will be more open to capitalist development and that will require investment from the rest of the world. Syria would only have a genuine foreign elite if it were annexed by a colonial power. That is why India was so poor under the British Raj and yet is developing so well now. Both systems operated under the capitalist model, but in British India the elite were the British who had no interest in reinvesting wealth in India. Now, the Indian elite are Indian and thus have a much stronger desire to reinvest in India. Quote: Russia took years to reach pre-1917 standards of living. The first few years of Bolshevik rule saw civil war, famine and a very brutal state. That doesn't mean the revolution was not good in the long term. Revolutions by their nature cause a lot of destruction and misery. If you didn't look at the long term you'd end up praising Tsarist Russia for its better standards of living than Bolshevik Russia in 1918. Quote: Factories are socially useful because they provide employment, advanced technology, a source of taxable income, and general reinvestment opportunities for the government. They also help proletarianise the population by providing better alternatives to subsistence farming. Quote: This is why you need local democracy. If the leader is put in power as a dictator by the US then yes, he will be more committed to US interests. However, if he is voted in by his own people then he will be more committed to them because they are his source of power, not the US. Quote: The bourgeoisie are very good at developing capitalism and capitalism is a necessary stage. Quote: They have a good track record. Ghana is one of the most developed African countries and is also one of the most democratic. I'm not saying it is an absolute necessity to industrialise (China, Imperial Japan, Imperial Germany), but countries under bourgeois democratic rule tend to develop very well. Quote: Did you not read the US Aid figures I quoted? If you think they are manipulated, then prove it. Quote: I'm not sure there would be much capital without foreign capital. Congo is full of precious metals but what use are they to the Congolese unless foreign companies buy them? What use is all of Ghana's gold unless it sells it the West? Poorer nations need to convert their raw materials into capital and the only way they can do that is buy selling them. 12 Feb 2012, 21:34
gRed Britain wrote: Of course they are suppressed, they routinely prune news columns for anything socialist in the comments section, people who have a socialist point of view are generally not given equal access to the means of communication. Is that not true? The pushing of things like punditry and entertainment news is deception, and illusion, it induces people to ignore the larger issues as they might start thinking critically about them. You could argue these are both natural things people will watch, but they have become disproportionately prominent in recent years at least. Fidel Castro once said he would open the airwaves in Cuba when they did in the United States, and that is truer today than it ever has been. The point is the government knows what you're up to. We're both fine with that which is why we are here, but lets not act as if Western democracy is not prone to arrest people without due cause and more to do with their political views, there are special divisions of police that track people with far left organizations, and even others just for showing up at demonstrations. This is what we can safely say we know, but what exactly do you think these police divisions are up to with this information? Lets not be naive here and praise western democracy as this model, perhaps in the works of Locke and Rousseau we can establish this kind of ideal democracy, but we both know that western democracy is not like that and even the Tea Party movement realizes this corporatization of government is problematic. But these are not new revelations, thats why reading Lenin today is so relevant. Much of what him and other Marxists of the day had to say about capitalist democracies is true today and we need to consider here. Your analysis seeks to deny neo-colonialism and its effects. We can begin with Nkrumah's work, or then also invoke the work of Raul Prebisch in dependency theory, whichever, they both have similar theories on dependency theory and underdevelopment. You're right that there needs to be foreign capital, but thats exactly why Import Substitute Industrialization was supposed to be temporary, and is essentially why South Korea has been so successful. It was able to protect its own industries while growing its domestic industries. All the great economic powers got there with protectionism, so when we put in regimes that are totally free market and break down protectionism we know that their priorities are not to turn the country into another industrial success story. You think very highly of different elites in these countries but you ignore the tendency of the US to install technocrats, do you not find it strange the presidents of Georgia and Cote D'Ivoire as so heavily affiliated with the IMF? They so willingly back AFRICOM, and NATO. They may reinvest more money than direct colonies, but I think to claim that this is guaranteed is problematic because there is no absolute trend that shows western democratic inspired governments abroad have a greater propensity to do so. The other thing is, we do have many studies suggesting land reform helps economic growth, but the US generally opposes land reform and supports these oligarchies on the land, which ultimately means they do not support economic development. Quote: I have a very good idea, I'm from Canada, I've lived in England before and have known many British people. No not everyone does that, but people tend to be very committed to local institutions to the point that they create an architecture of credibility that if it does not originate from an American or British university affiliated group then its not worth considering. Maybe you are not the type to do that, but don't act as if "I've lost the plot" you, as are Canadians or Americans, are notorious for doing that. There is more than one or two sides to the story, and examining that information, even if you decide to disagree with it, is important, and I find your arguments do not cite any independent claims, I'm not citing Mathaba or Pravda here, I'm making efforts to show a wide range of sources from different authors, and different theorists. Quote: You are not really examining how elites work in these countries. Lets examine how a western-friendly elite works in Russia. Its more an issue of how imports from the West increase, to fund the needs of expanding elite's desire for luxury goods, local industries close down, city centers are opened to tourism and gentrification etc... these things surely occur without a western-friendly regime, but I think we need to closely examine the actions of regimes relative to their closeness to the west and how this benefits people. The removing of sanctions with the US is good, lets keep in mind, most countries face some sort of trade obstacle with the United States and other western countries. So, they remove these trade barriers and make it easier to trade, but it does not necesarily mean local people will make more, it just means elites will make money, and in some cases they take a bigger cut than they did before. But where is the evidence that these neo-liberal programs cause successful industrialization, the experience in Africa and Latin America has proved that this is not the best way to industrialize. Auctioning off state assets to foreign bidders at low prices who then use such concessions to get a foothold in the country erodes the power of the state and of the people. If the state water provider is responsive to the people to a degree, the foreign company which takes on the concession is not. These are programs practiced widely which are not reducing poverty, not giving people more money to spend in the economy, and not developing the country. I just don't see the evidence that westernization is working, I know the arguments, my roommate was an economist form Oxford and I've heard it. Quote: Right. So, because the CIA jumped in and put together an opposition force of ex-pats and former government ministers, along with some local griveances plus a high number of islamists, somehow this is a net gain? I understand what you are saying, and you're right. But I don't think you appreciate the real beneficiaries of this revolution, I mean naturally there was opposition there, I'm not denying that, but it was certainly much more beneficial to ENI than it was to any Libyans. I said a factory that is not socially useful, as in they destroy certain industries to replace them with others. All the useless shit you buy in the west on infomercials was made somewhere... its not all done in china. OK, I never said I supported people remaining farmers, I really didn't need you to give me a basic lesson on urbanization and proletarianization, I never disagreed with that. I just don't see why it needs to be through a Western-backed regime. Where did Marx or Lenin say the only way to industrialize was by becoming a colony of international finance capital? Capitalism is a necessary stage of development, but being a colony of international finance does not necessarily have to be. We know that the anti-colonial liberation is part of the socialist revolution, but its not like every country that broke with Western domination went back to the stone age as you are making it seem. That too is just as you say, living standards go down after a revolution, but one which is anti-colonial is arguably much better. I don't see how its incorrect to suggest that undergoing an anti-colonial revolution is a gain in many ways, and that becoming a western backed colony is a bad thing. It is not contrary to socialist ideology. Quote: OK, but lets evaluate some US democracies then... Ethiopia? Georgia? Come on man, you can't sit here extoling me on the virtues of American democracy as if it ultimately leads to legitimate governments. The revolution in Egypt shows the flawed argument you are making. It sounds like Friedman's arguments that free markets lead to freer people. Quote: Right, so if we need to decide between foreign-backed bourgeoisie, or anti-imperialist bourgeoisie, and the criteria you want to use is the ability for economic growth, then does not the Sovereign Wealth Fund of Libya, the pictures of a highly developed country kind of prove that non-American backed regimes can be just as successful if not more than those countries not backed by the US. Lets take Burkina Faso, the country was starting to develop its own textile industry and other local industries, Compaore certainly did not advance that agenda. So, what exactly went on there? A western backed democracy meant less development. In certain instances maybe it is better in some arguable way to prove the benefits of western democracy, but there is no formula which should determine that it would be beneficial, as I think there is consistent criticism of this policy for nearly every country in the planet where the US empire is active currently. Quote: I'm well aware of success stories like Ghana and Costa Rica, but lets also keep in mind these countries are the exception and not the rule, and both you and I know that. Further, there are other reasons why Ghana is more developed it cannot all be attributed to the last 20 or 30 years, Ghana does have a unique history and it would be worth elaborating on if you feel Ghana is the model for the rest of Africa as it is presently. Are you going to defend Cote D'Ivoire as a great example of bourgeois democracy developing the country? I think you are attributing development to the government in place, which is true, but you assume it is the form of government instead of the relations with that specific government to the IMF, France and the United States. Houphouet-Boigny's commitment to French designs on Cote D'Ivoire did much more develop the country, and Sekou Toure's refusal to go along with France cost the country. This is not some leftist argument but one posted by Randall Stone an american scholar of political science who examined France and America's relationship with African states. I don't doubt that this is where USAID goes, but thats why its deceptive because they earmark other funds toward different ends such as NED or Freedom House, or a number of other NGOs the US runs and helps it shape regimes where it wants to. If you don't think these NGOs have a pivotal role in world politics you are sadly mistaken. Quote: Yes, and thats exactly the problem. Anytime someone threatens that they get shot, which kind of vindicates the emancipatory appeal of such an idea. Your argument is that imperialism is bad, and if we fight it we will be worse off, so lets work with imperialism for now until we can fight it... sometime in the future? Man, I really don't get what you mean by 'good track record' it sounds like you read a political science textbook and copy pasted here, anyone who is even nominally lefist knows full well that these American-backed regimes are not a positive force in the world, they are routinely reactionary and to back them among genuine leftists won't win you any friends. FYI: Iraq is sending troops to Syria, lol... I suppose to you thats a good thing, not really worth mentioning. and, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/12/us-syria-zawarhi-idUSTRE81B05320120212 here is evidence of al-Qaeda support, seems like some direct links there. "The present is a time of struggle; the future is ours."
13 Feb 2012, 14:05
Quote: I don't deny the bourgeoisie seek to shape the discourse on Marxism through its monopoly on information and the media, but that doesn't mean Marxism is actively suppressed. This appeared two weeks ago in one of Britain's biggest daily newspapers. I know it's not inherently Marxist but still, having an article suggesting we look again at Marx's writings on capitalism in a bourgeois newspaper is not symbolic of Marxism being 'actively suppressed.' How often do articles countrary to the political party's ideology get published in Syria's newspapers? Quote: Countries are able to reform their economic policy. Japan was opened up to western imperialist trade via US gunboat diplomacy in the mid 19th century. Even by the 1890s Japan was still subject to unequal treaties with the various western powers. However, it managed to develop its economy, industrialise and shake off the shackles of imperialism. Malaysia after independence was a great supplier of raw materials. Let's not forget the British had spent a considerable amount of time and money defeating communists there prior to independence. Yet Malaysia was able to use the surplus generated from selling its raw materials and invest it in manufacturing and economic develoment. Quote: Bangladesh, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ghana, Thailand, Israel... Quote: Not in my experience. People in Britain don't have a tendency to love Oxford and the BBC. Quote: You really like to homogenise groups of people don't you. Quote: You haven't cited anything. You've name-dropped various authors without citing specific texts and how they back up your arguments. Throughout this whole thread you've provided a grand total of one link which was just to an article you found you generally agreed with; nothing to back up any of your many grand claims. Quote: They make more money and thus they reinvest more in local infrastructure. Say a man owns a mine in a poor African country. Suddenly, as a result of an improved trade agreement, he is able to make higher profits on the minerals sold abroad. He then uses these profits to expand the mine's productivity (he expands the mining area, buys better machinery, hires more labour). He does this because he knows that expanding the mine's productivity will result in him accumulating even greater profits. At the same time, his increased profits provide more tax revenue for the government and more jobs for labourers. Quote: This is not an ideal situation but it is important to remember the purpose of the foreign company is to make money. Thus it won't price water out of the market because it won't make any money. In actual fact, the foreign company will most likely use its technology and money to invest in the country's water supply, raising the amount of water produced and thus lowering the price of water. Eventually, when the country is much more economically and politically developed, it can regain control of its water industry but with the benefits of Western infrastructure. Example: Saudi Arabia The US essentially built the Saudi oil industry. Now the Saudi's own it themselves. Sure, Saudi is far from being outside the US sphere of influence but this can only be seen as economic progress in the long term. Quote: Those factories are useful. Just because the workers don't consume the items they make doesn't mean the process of their production is not useful to the region. They provide jobs, investment and a manufacturing industry. If they destroy previous cottage industries then that is a good thing. Capitalism replaces cottage industry with mass production. Quote: ‘English interference having placed the spinner in Lancashire and the weaver in Bengal, or sweeping away both Hindoo spinner and weaver, dissolved these small semi-barbarian, semi-civilized communities, by blowing up their economical basis, and thus produced the greatest, and to speak the truth, the only social revolution ever heard of in Asia.’ ‘England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.’ Marx - The British Rule in India ‘England has to fulfil a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia.’ 'From the Indian natives, reluctantly and sparingly educated at Calcutta, under English superintendence, a fresh class is springing up, endowed with the requirements for government and imbued with European science.' 'All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what they will not fail to do is to lay down the material premises for both. Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation?' 'The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindoos themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether.' Marx - The Future Results of British Rule in India Now I admit these are very Orientalist but Marx was a product of his time. I think the last quote is particularly poignant in that India is now only realising the full potential of its productive powers now that the British have gone. Quote: No it isn't. All countries which went socialist after liberation (except North Korea) have resorted to capitalist measures because they realise these are the best way to industrialise. Quote: I never said that. I still think Syria is developing (it's better now than it was when the French left). I just think it would develop a lot faster if it implemented market-oriented policies. Quote: Ethiopia is far from perfect and I'm no expert but from my prelimenary reading it sounds better now than it did under the Derg. Incidently, it too is starting to make market-oriented reforms to improve its economy. Quote: Exactly. This is what I mean by playing the game of imperialism. Cote d'Ivoire was not in a position to resist French imperialism. By working with it instead, Houphouet-Boigny managed to develop the country's infrastructure. If this is done to a level whereby the country is sufficiently economically developed then it can start to shake off the pressures of imperialism. Quote: I am saying the developing world needs economic development. History has shown that in the vast majority of cases, state-owned businesses at this level of development cannot compete with liberal market-oriented policies. Most countries which tried state-ownership have turned to capitalism because they realise it is better for industrialising. A bourgeois democracy, whilst not essential, tends to benefit this because the bourgeoisie are the revolutionary class under the early stages of capitalism. Having their full participation in government allows them to contribute to their maximum potential. Quote: If they were reactionary they would hinder economic development. Economic development is necessary to build a strong proletariat and which can launch a genuine proletarian revolution. 13 Feb 2012, 14:07
*double post - please delete
13 Feb 2012, 15:58
Quote: I can see you're in denial. Quote: Do you know? I don't speak Arabic and I'm assuming you don't either and are just basing this on assumption, if you are a regular subscriber to Syrian news then by all means... I read the mainstream newspapers here, in the States, in Quebec, I have never read Marx's name let alone any of his theories being discussed. I think citing one article in a million is not really strengthening your point, does anyone here disagree with me, marxism is in the papers and not actively suppressed. I noticed you didn't deal with my argument that there are special police divisions to deal with "radical leftist terrorists" this is how they classify any social movment with marxist leanings. So, it's ok to discuss marx, but not to publicly organize in support of. But then, maybe things are different in Britain, I know there is a Marxist tradition there but travelling across England on different occasions I noted people were just as conservative or nearly as conservative as those in Canada or USA. So I really doubt that Marxism is as common as you make it. It can only be discussed if it bashes every socialist experiment in history, is my experience if it ever does make it to a mainstream publication. Honestly, I don't know what you're getting so upset about 'homogenization,' by definition a mainstream publication, is something most people view as credible, and objective in some shape or form. By doing so they tend to also view Western sources above all others, ie Libyan state television is propaganda, but BBC is unbiased. That is a legitimate criticism to make. Quote: Man, seriously, India, Indonesia??? Israel, what! Quote: Lol ok, what do people in Britain like to read? Marxist publications right Quote: What grand claims? That imperialism exists? Neo-Colonialism by Nkrumah, I thought it was pretty clear thats what I was working from. Have you read it? many contemporary African scholars write about it and I think its a valid way of understanding the economic model in place now, and I can see you agree, but you think it is a net good thing and some day many years from now... Quote: But we know from experience, regardless of what Marx said, that these groomed elites can go both ways. In the case of Amilcar Cabral, and Pol Pot they turned to socialist ideology, but in many other cases they just represented a continuation for imperialism. Besides, none of those quotes contrast what I said, Britain encouraged the revolution in India I agree, and that was a good thing. How does this relate to Libya or Syria? Lets consider Libya, becomes independent under a King who is western client, overthrown, and many researchers have documented the social reforms in this period, arguably the most popular that government ever was. Why exactly should we be against the Libyan revolution of 1969 and the reforms that it brought? Quote: I think thats a simplistic analysis. If we look at the Marxist regimes of the late 1980s they simply were not strong enough to continue without America investment, ie Congo, Yemen, but Cuba and N. Korea were relatively stronger. No one is discounting that there needs to be capitalism for development, I'm just disagreeing with you on your support for all these neo-colonial arrangements under imperialism. Its easy to argue for it but when you go to these plantations yourself, and you see the level of cultural imperialism at play in places like Philippines, I just can't go on arguing that this is a good thing. How can destroying a national culture in favour of MTV shit, lead to revolution? We don't have any evidence to suggest that this will then happen. I would argue the rebels in the Philippines are much more on the mark about whats going on than some British marxists who would favor the comprador regime. The problem you aren't considering is remittances of foreign workers, not only that but there are many factors which make these situations different. I agree it still fits in a marxist analysis, but I'm not sure that because an American friendly regime runs things in the Philippines that there will eventually be a revolution, look what happened in Nepal. Or wait, you probably are against peasant insurgencies, because those people need to not revolt and just go back to what they were doing and it will all work out. See your argument is that imperialism and neo-colonialism are the only way for a country to develop properly. Why is there no alternative? Quote: No, you're right, I'm not advocating a return to the welfare state, but your advocating for neo-liberal reforms also contradicts much recent literature and the shifting consensus on economic growth. I mean, are you going to tell me The Economist is correct on this line? The bourgeois being subservient or not to international capital is what we are addressing. Reactionary is someone who is against revolution, ie something more redistributionist. Better redistribution does not accompany economic growth, the nations you cited are not known for being equal. India in fact is one of the worst in the world, there are massive problems there that China is dealing with much more efficiently. Not to invoke some sort of China vs. India argument, but my point is this, India's liberal democratic order is less efficient then whatever you want to call China, lets not get into that. India is not a success story from any conventional viewpoint, you do realize that the whole US policy of putting a ring of hostile nations around China requires them to give much more favourable trade agreements, military power, etc,. I'm not saying they did not do great things, and that it was all due to US influence, but I think it is interesting that countries like Taiwan and S. Korea have been successful in industrializing. Having been to South Korea, and the Philippines myself, I can tell you poverty exist there... Monthly Review has a good book on South Korea and the myth of that success story, I can't remember the author I hope you'll forgive me here... OK, your defending Zenawi regime is a bit unfair, is the only way for developing countries to industrialize under a cruel Western-backed despot? I mean the narrative we have here is you believe that industrialization under imperialism is better than industrialism... The thing you ignore about tax bases is here is you assume in some African country that that is whats going to happen. Its not really within the interest of the comprador bourgeoisie to do this as they subscribe to the neo-liberal mantra that less government is better, so they already escape paying taxes, and they want to shrink government, and the ability of the central government to deal with the poor. They don't want to get rid of the government, but they want it to be subservient to their interests. There people are middle men distributors for western corporations, whether in food processing, HR, electronics, sales, etc., the list goes on. But the point is, if places like Libya, Syria, Cuba have local industries to produce the same things, this is good, Cuba is doing much better than the rest of Carribean like Haiti which is basically just producing things for American companies. Kind of interesting, don't you think? I think you are totally ignoring the psychological and cultural effects of imperialism and suggesting it as a necessary evil. Both a local regime or a foreign-oriented one are capitalist, but we have key differences in the level of socialism practiced by each, and thats what we need to consider. A revolutionary conciousness will more likely be established in a place like Burkina Faso where the leading figure of the nation was a socialist rather than Cote D'Ivoire, I think if you asked many people their opinion on France they would rather be independent. Unless you think most of the world is much happier under imperialism than their own system that they would choose instead. Its disingenous to claim that you are for self-determination but then support western client states as the lesser evil. Then, to top it off, back up your claims with quotes from Bill Clinton and Obama as if press conference is the definitive way of determining, oh no, America isn't so bad at all, they wanted to help see! As for all your quotes, thats all well and good, but I think you misinterpreted what I meant. The situation we have today was very much so predicted by Lenin, which is more of what I was discussing. But comparing it to India I'm not convinced that you're not just inferring meaning into quotes. I am talking about a colony, as in, nations who are not colonies presently, should not go back into that state where they are. The new Libyan government, or at the very least until the NTC leaves, is extremely subservient to interests of Western capital to a degree that the previous regime was not. Western capital does not have the same interests as local people, we know that, so in order to work with it there need to be compromises, are you familiar with the IMF conditionality and the human suffering it has provoked? While Cuba sends doctors to many of these countries... I don't really think we should argue for something bad in the hopes it will lead to something good. You need to live in the present, and not hypothesize about what might happen in the future. The more socialism in the economy is better because under neo-liberal reforms the key stated goal is to change how people think of goods and services and to commodify "make people responsible" etc., but the whole idea is they are changing the way people view things and under more public ownership, it does strengthen the community in a certain way. Nationalization is good, when you see the massive demonstrations they have in Venezuela for nationalizations, it is a heartening thing to see, people taking it back, I always thought all socialists supported these kinds of things. I get your theoretical stance, that socialism will triumph if every country industrializes to the point where it should happen, I also think many other theorists after Marx, changed the theory to suit their conditions. I agree with this, but I know many conventional Marxists think this was a terrible idea. At root though I think what we are discussing is a future-oriented framework versus a present-oriented one, by sticking to these ostensible principles of Marxism you end up on the wrong side of history and support movements like the syrian and libyan rebels. When we look at the syrian and libyan governments and their supporters, they may not be marxists, but they are secular, and progressive. We as Marxists cannot go supporting the Libyan rebels when they ethnically cleanse a village and lynch people, The Libya previously seemed much more committed to the idea of dismantling nationalism by allowing many people to live in Libya and promoting close ties with nations across the continent, ie south-south ties. If your argument is that the peripheral countries need to bring themselves up to semi-periphery and core status, the countries you did mention, then is it not possible to reach the same place but by nationalizing giving more control to the state and being more free from imperialism? Libya and China, while arguably not Marxist regimes both developed well outside of Western influence. At the very least, we should be able to take a stance that the war in Libya was a civil war and that it installed a regime more friendly to the West. Any idea of great economic development or future democracy is purely speculative, South Korea and Taiwan can only recently been characterized as democracies, and I think there is a great deal of literature in South Korea dealing with how the government is still quite repressive. Well, let's sum up a bit here, you support progressive and pro-imperialist movements that promote foreign economic ownership, in the hope that they will someday lead to a revolution? But what line is this? It seems to run contrary to more progressive movements in these countries, like Ethiopia, why would you support Zenawi?? Thats so disingenous, you actively support Washington's anti-democratic regimes while claiming they are strong shining examples of democratic liberalism. Thats exactly the problem, in the present system in the West, it is appropriate to criticize the liberal democratic order, why then should it be exported? It works here because of imperialism and the core countries running the show, but when exported it leads to same things it ostensibly fights. Corruption is not reduced, perhaps you can find some examples of this, but there is no law which states that a democratic liberal state will not violate all these things which you claim to be working for. In fact I would argue the majority of these American supported regimes are not democrats, they are simply economic liberals and will use any means necessary to enforce their rule. Taking that into account, we need to value the progressive movements in this country. Inevitably, in countries like Zimbabwe, Libya, Syria there is this domestic opposition who wants reform and they represent different groups in society, but their representation as a majority, is this true? We can't assume that it is, the fact that 50,000 troops and possible less resisted a NATO air strike for months is impressive, not weak. If the CIA funds these governments into power in the first place, it has also shown a strong commitment to back these regimes as soon as discontent mounts. Simply because it doesn't make the front page does not mean its not happening. "The present is a time of struggle; the future is ours."
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||||
Forum Index » Discussion » Current Events » Why did Russia block the UN resolution on Syria? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ][ Next ]
[ Top ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
