The REDSTAR2000 Papers

Listen to the worm of doubt, for it speaks truth. - Leftist Discussion

"Leftist" Lackeys of U.S. Imperialism September 2, 2003 by RedStar2000

Normally, I don't include my posts on "current events" in this site; it's supposed to be about communist theory.

I'm making an exception in this case because the current Iraqi resistance to U.S. and British occupation has exposed a good deal of western "leftism" as fake..."left" in sentiment, reactionary in practice.

When someone tells you that they are a "socialist" or "communist", your first response must be to dig deeper. A promising site for political excavation is their views on U.S. imperialism.

In Marx's time, Russia was "the fortress of European reaction"...the country that could be counted on to supply troops to crush European rebellions. At the beginning of this century, the United States is the fortress of world reaction...the superpower that stands behind reactionary regimes everywhere.

Anyone who wishes to be considered any kind of leftist or progressive has no choice but to unconditionally oppose U.S. imperialism.

And that definitely includes so-called "international peacekeeping" forces which act as surrogates for U.S. imperialism. A "blue helmet" does not change the class nature of imperialism.

That does not mean or imply that we are "obligated" to act as "cheerleaders" for the victims of U.S. imperialism...some of whom are quite reactionary in their own right. It simply means that in any conflict in the early 21st century, the main enemy is always U.S. imperialism.

It's something that must be kept in mind.


You are evidently under the impression that this is some kind of personal matter. It is not.

This is about a political question: whether or not to support U.S.-British imperialism in Iraq.

You think it's not fair of me to characterize your attitudes towards Iraqis as "wogs" (a British racist term towards Arabs and Indians). I think it is quite fair and justified in the light of your advice to them to stop resisting their new colonial masters.

You think it is unfair of me to name you "the Colonel Blimp of Che-Lives"...I think your cheerleading for imperialism fully justifies that label--most recently, your undisguised joy at the capture of "chemical Ali" and expressed wish for his execution. What's your feeling about the capture and execution of the infamous war criminals George W. Bush and Tony Blair?

I further assert that your decision to move the dispute into a closed forum and pretend that it's simply a "personality clash" between "immature people" is just another sign of your political dishonesty. The matter has nothing to do with personalities or "maturity" has to do with which side are you on!

You want to be accepted as a "leftist" here...and you think that a lofty opinion of Robert Owen is sufficient qualification. It isn't.

No one who supports U.S.-British imperialism in today's world can be considered any kind of leftist period.

That's it! No exceptions!

Now I think you should return to Opposing Ideologies (where you belong!) and proceed to the defense of your servile politics.
First posed at Che-Lives on August 25, 2003


Redstar, give the guy a break.


And why do you ask for me to give him a break? Unless you've changed your views, you are a pacifist as a matter of principle. Why do you want me to give an outspoken proponent of imperialist war "a break"?


I think it's perfectly understandable to support the military action in Iraq, it got rid of Saddam after all and the US will have to bow to pressure to let the UN take greater control.

If "it's perfectly understandable", then why did you oppose it?

As for the United States "bowing to pressure", what pressure?

As for the United Nations taking greater control of occupied Iraq, the UN is nothing but a contemptible figleaf for U.S. imperialism!

All the high-minded rhetoric over the last 58 years of the United Nations hasn't amounted to a puddle of warm spit...the U.S. imperialists do as they please and the U.N. either supports that or stands aside and whimpers a little.


And to be honest I'm glad the UK's involved because Blair's been pretty good at keeping Bush in line, at least partially.

What is your evidence for this astounding assertion? I look at the BBC site a couple of times a day and I've seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Blair is any different from you-know-who...a spineless lackey of U.S. imperialism.


If there's a chance of finding Saddam, a man responsible for all those deaths and tortures it's worth it. And isn't Ali guilty of these kinds of crimes as well? I don't know for sure about that one but I think it's fine to express joy, don't have a go at him for it!

And the crimes of Bush and Blair???


I have no problems with him, if you disagree on one thing there's no need to constantly drag it up, or disregard anything else he says on other issues.

Actually, my comments were made in two threads that actually concerned the current occupation of they were "on topic" and very much to the point.

If you think its "ok" to be a supporter of U.S. and British imperialism, that's up to you. It's not "ok" with me.


Being against the previous Iraqi regime even to the extent of thinking that an American invasion is the lesser of two evils does not remotely qualify one as a 'supporter of imperialism'. Still less does it make you a nationalist or a racist.

Looks like it to me. How can a victory of U.S. imperialism be "the lesser of two evils"?

Clearly, you are a complete stranger to the concept of "revolutionary defeatism"...the obligation of communists to first oppose "their own" imperialist ruling class.

Then again, you are a complete stranger to any revolutionary concepts, aren't you?


He made a value judgment different to most of us, that is all. Frankly his judgment does not actually seem all that wrong to me with hindsight.

Dipping your toes in the imperial baths, are you?

Somehow, I'm not surprised.


Well the logic is rather simple, the yanks and the brits will go away if left alone...By killing US soldiers they [the Iraqi resistance] are merely prolonging the time the US stays in Iraq.

And "therefore" the Iraqis should submit to their new masters.

If this is not the "logic" of a spineless lackey of U.S.-British imperialism, what is?

If the French had just stopped resisting, the Germans would have gone away, right?

First posted at Che-Lives on August 25, 2003


Have you been living in a cave for the past 6 months?

That certainly answers my question, doesn't it?!


So speaks the great political analyst RS2k, with that hugely well thought out and extensive argument anyone would think that you had done years of research into the political affairs of the UN and US policies. So at which university are you now, professor??? Ohh what you're not at university? You haven't got a degree in 20th century world politics specialising in post war diplomacy?

Ahh the arrogant judgments of the ignorant, trying to sound informed.

Ahh, the substitution of a lot of hot air for rational arguments. You've been taking debating lessons from the reformist.


Ohh wow, you read the BBC web site a couple of times a day from a country 3000 miles away, she on the other hand, sees far more detailed reports by the same organisation on TV most likely every day, hears it on the radio, sees it in the papers, etc, etc... Who's more informed about British politics and the actions of its prime minister, sorry if I place my bets with her, redstar.

If her evidence is no better than yours, then you'd you provided nothing in answer to my question except more hot air.


What does making a highly personal insult towards a person who was not even in that particular thread, have to do with Iraq resistance???

The fact that you are opposed to that resistance demonstrates that you do think of them as "wogs"...whether you admit it or not.


How can a victory of fascism and despotism under Saddam Hussein be "the lesser of two evils"?

We've been through this silly crap before. Hussein was a minor tinpot dictator who would almost certainly been deposed in due time by the Iraqis themselves...or would have been assassinated or even died of old age.

U.S.-British imperialism are in Iraq for good...unless the Iraqis can drive them out.

Something which you are against.


No, there is a large difference between waiting and biding your time than submitting.

Now that's rich! All of a sudden, you're ready to offer "constructive advice" to the Iraqi resistance, admonishing them to be patient, wait for the quisling regime to be installed, the occupation troops withdrawn, and then they have your permission to rebel.

And you actually call me "arrogant"!!!


The political climate of nazi Germany and modern day USA is completely different, Bush has to please voters, and opinion polls are slowly starting to say that people want the troops to come home, the US economy is not geared towards funding a long term occupation.

No, it is not "completely different" and, in fact, is remarkably similar (if I may be so bold as to correct someone who "lives 3000 miles away"!). Most Germans supported German imperialism while they were winning. It is the same I suspect it is in the U.K.--especially if you are a representative sample.

As to "Bush having to please voters", victorious imperialist wars are a great way to do that. Only if the Iraqi resistance really does turn into a bloody war of attrition is Bush (or Blair) likely to suffer at the polls.

The American economy has been shaped for the purpose of war more or less continuously since 1940-41...a long-term military occupation of Iraq is what is going to happen unless the Iraqis make the cost in American lives prohibitive.

quote: are a spiteful old git who hates to be wrong.

Fortunately for you, being wrong has never bothered you even a little bit.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 25, 2003


What I'm concerned with is achieving dignity and fair treatment for people.

Something which the U.S. and British imperialists are really "expert" at, right???


You calling me an imperialist don't make me one...

No, you have to make it clear that, like Colonel Blimp, you are one. Then I'll call you that...because it will be true.

I simply note that, at the moment, you're "flirting" with the idea.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 26, 2003

Did Colonel Blimp say anything of substance in that post?

I read it as incoherent bullshit in place of argument or evidence.

All he says here is "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're a liar, you're arrogant, and you're wrong".

And something about opinion if that had anything to do with anything! Is there any reasonable doubt, at least at this point, that Bush and Blair will be re-elected unless there is a massive war of resistance in Iraq?

And some weirdness about the American economy the relevance of which I can't even begin to decipher.

"This isn't about evidence" says Colonel Blimp...correctly since he has none.

All he has, really, is a slavish desire to please his imperial masters and free advice for others to do likewise.

The advice is worth even less than it costs.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 26, 2003


It's a straightforward question: Do you believe that Iraqis would be better off under Saddam than they are likely to be now?

The answer is obviously yes and I cannot imagine on what grounds you would dispute that.

For one thing, some 7,000 civilians and an unknown number of Iraqi soldiers would still be that "today" enough for you?

For another thing, the electricity would still be on and the hospitals would still have at least some equipment, etc.

But wait, you said "are likely to be" referring to some future state of affairs, didn't you? Which country will colonial Iraq come to resemble? (1) Colombia; (2) Ecuador; (3) Nigeria; (4) Jordan; (5) Puerto Rico; (6) Angola...pick as many as you think applicable.

By the way, did you hear the latest? There's talk of rebuilding that old pipeline that ran from the oil fields in northern Iraq to Haifa. For the "dignity and fairness" of the Iraqi people, of course.


I struggle to stay even half way polite to you...

Come off it! I've never seen you be "polite" to anyone who had the temerity to disagree with your lordship. Indeed, personal abuse is as habitual with you as it is with at least five others here that I could name. Anyone who blows the whistle on your empty reformist pretensions is "arrogant". Hell, you even jumped down some poor guy's throat in Theory because you thought he "might" have disagreed with you and then you had to apologize to him...because you mistakenly thought he was agreeing with me.


Anyone can talk about how wonderful it would be if everyone agreed with them. Smart people, and honourable people find a way to acknowledge a) that this isn't ever likely to be so; b) that their personal view can be wrong sometimes.

Obviously I don't expect "everyone" to agree with me...that's just another of your enormous army of straw men. But it happens that on several occasions on this board I have been mistaken and admitted it and, where appropriate, apologized for my error.

What I have not done is resort to "argument" by rhetorical intimidation...which is your preferred style.

So be it; to each their own. But, in my view, you've displayed neither honor nor intelligence...just belligerence.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 26, 2003


Actually redstar there's not a chance in hell that Labour will make it in next election.

That's nice...but you didn't answer my question.

You asserted that Blair was "restraining" Bush...where is the evidence for that???

And where is your evidence that the United Nations is anything but a figleaf for U.S. imperialism?

And where is this so-called "pressure" on the U.S. to "yield control" of Iraq...except from the Iraqi resistance, of course.

(In passing, George W. Bush is presently a 7-5 favorite in Las Vegas to win re-election.)


I guess RS would say ok, he murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, but at least he stood up to [the] US

Did he indeed? How many Iraqis died as a result of the ongoing aggression by the United States (including the UN sanctions) from 1992 to the present? Two million? Three? Mostly kids, right?

But then America has treated the Kurds rather better than Hussein did (so far) your bias is pretty obvious.

Be it noted, however, that your favorite ethnic group has already been involved in one shootout against another ethnic minority in Iraq...the Turkomen, I believe they're called.

Inter-ethnic warfare with American-supplied weaponry may be a satisfying future for you and yours...until the American imperialists decide to back somebody else!

When you find yourself in the shit, perhaps you'll remember my warning.

And when you have to stand up against U.S. and British imperialism (if you can), you'll see who will support you...and who won't.


OK, I'll give you that (however exaggerated) but how many have died because of Saddam? add another 0 (at least) onto that 7,000 and you may come close to the number of people that would have died had he stayed in power.

Would have? Could have? I was talking about actual corpses. If you want to talk about "would have", make up any number you one can possibly dispute it.

(Note that Colonel Blimp has promised a "daily death total" for Hussein's regime...I predict that it will be on the same scholarly, scientific basis as his prediction of the flooding of Palestine due to global warming.)


Haha, I reckon you're right...About the standing up to the US bit, I mean.

Haha..."standing up to the U.S." seems to have lost its appeal to some of our British members.

Perhaps this has something to do with lengthy attendance at a "posh school"'ll recall Marx's contention that "being determines consciousness".


You've just seen every person who responded state the exact grounds that they and millions of others have been stating for 6 months. You don't have to imagine it matey, just actually read something that isn't produced by you.

Yes, I've just seen what the pacifist, the Kurd, and Colonel Blimp have posted. The net content, in my view: zero.

Anything else?


I am for sure belligerent. Kinda strange though chummy that you can in the same post call me belligerent and at the same time accuse me of being prepared to cosy up to Imperialist and 'reformists'. Which is it - Am I an inflexible aggressive egoist or a woolly appeaser? Difficult to be both I'd say.

Well, I'd suggest it depends on who you're talking to; belligerent towards the left and appeaser towards the right would be a good summary...the usual reformist stance.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 26, 2003


Redstar not for the first time you've effectively called me a traitor. I take that sort of thing personally.

Oh, stop whining! All I've "called" you is a reformist...which you are. You believe in bourgeois democracy--which you insist on calling "liberal democracy" to disguise its class nature. For that matter, you reject class analysis favor of a "continuum". You support a parliamentary path to "socialism" which in fact is simply capitalism without capitalists (temporarily).

And you're starting to weasel on the question of imperialist war...something that reformists often do as a prelude to supporting imperialist war. If you want to follow Colonel Blimp, I can't stop you. But I can tell you where the road leads...and I have.

If you don't like the destination, don't blame the road-map.


Redstar, the resistance to Bush is in France and Germany mainly, but basically the whole world, or are you not listening to your international news?

As I noted previously, I visit the BBC site two and sometimes three times a day. Prior to the war, Schroeder and Chirac were making public speeches against the war. Since the occupation, I've seen no reports of serious opposition from either country...except from the "extreme left", of course.

All that France and Germany seem interested in is a "share of the plunder" (the same is true for Russia). They think a "UN umbrella" will allow for that. I don't know if that will actually happen or not, nor do I give a rat's ass. No matter which flags fly above occupied Iraq, it is a United States colony, period.


If Blair hadn't been involved, do you really think that Bush would have waited so long to get into Iraq?

Are we arguing timing here? Would Iraqis have suffered less if the war had begun in December or November?

What if Blair had refused to involve the UK at all?

What if Blair had promised to help defend Iraq against U.S. aggression?

What if pigs were granted two slots at Heathrow?


Blair, unlike Bush, was not doing it for anything other than his given reasons, he's a Christian, an Anglican, which is very different from Bush's kind of fire and brimstone Christianity.

British Petroleum played no part in his motives, you think? Really?

And he got to be Prime Minister because of his "high-mindedness" and "integrity"...unlike any other bourgeois politician in recorded history, right?

And the British who did all those terrible things in India, Ireland, and, yes, Iraq (1920-1958), they "weren't" Christians? Even Anglicans?

I think the pigs just applied for another slot at Heathrow.


Blair is a sincere man, he wanted to get rid of the cruel regime, and I think he really believed in all the weapons of mass destruction that are now being disputed, his motives were pure. You can say what you like but I'll still believe that.

What about the weapons of mass destruction that the UK itself possesses? What about the weapons of mass destruction that are stored at American military bases in the UK?

It would appear that your Mr. Blair has a rather "selective" view of cruelty...much more selective than the warhead of a nuclear bomb.

"It's one thing if we kill the 'wogs''s quite another if they kill us" would appear to be an accurate summary.

If you choose to believe in Blair's "pure motives" regardless of what I say or the historical record shows, that's up to you.

Perhaps the Anglicans will canonize him...they do have "saints", don't they?


Now Britain knows that the UN need to be involved in a big way, so we're pushing for it, we're in the middle, we're sorting out the compromise between the UN, France and Germany, and Bush and the US on the other side.

Yes, the thieves and would-be thieves are squabbling over the plunder and need an "international" figleaf to cover their naked ambitions.


I'm sorry I don't have any more substantial proof, I lead a sheltered life in my "posh school".

The problem is not "lack of information"...the problem is class outlook. You are successfully being conditioned to identify with your own ruling class...look at what you just wrote about your war-criminal prime minister!

Which of his own hired lackeys would say any less?


Clearly I know little about Saddam's regime apart from the atrocities, so I don't know much about quality of life, but I doubt it was good.

Then it's time to learn, isn't it? Actually, Iraq was one of the better places to live in the Middle East prior to the war with Iran, particularly with regard to women's rights. It was pretty bad for Kurds, of course (the atrocities) and Muslim fundamentalists were routinely fished out of the river with bullets in their skulls. Hussein didn't like communists either and killed a fair number of them. Definitely a bastard.

Nevertheless, for the average Iraqi (especially compared to the average Jordanian, Egyptian, or "Saudi" Arabian), life was pretty decent...almost approaching modernity.

When Hussein decided that being a lackey of U.S. imperialism was a good idea (listen up, Kurds!), he fought a surrogate war on behalf of the U.S. against the ayatollahs' Iran. A disastrous mistake and the beginning of the end.

An eight-year war ensured with horrendous casualties, extensive damage to Basra in the south and also some towns in the north (it's at least possible that those gassed Kurds were killed by Iranian forces, by the way, not "Chemical Ali".).

When the war was over, Hussein presented his "bill" to an American envoy...possession of Kuwait. The envoy was noncommittal, suggesting that the U.S. was uninterested in the matter.

Hussein invaded Kuwait...and you know what happened after that.

The United States does not like it when its lackeys start acting in their own interests. Remember Panama's Noriega?

After the first U.S. war against Iraq, things steadily deteriorated there--mostly because of the United Nations sanctions, of course, but the regime itself became more brutal and corrupt (though women's rights were preserved...that won't be the case under a new quisling government if the U.S. actually succeeds in forming one).

Iraq was not bombed back into the stone age, just back into the middle ages...where ethnic and religious warfare (and organized criminal gangs) will rip what's left of the place apart thanks be to Bush and Blair.


I support the Iraqi resistance at the moment actually, as more soldiers die it seems that more Americans want the soldiers to come home, which means more leverage for the UN, etc.

Yes, "we" Americans just "love it" when blue-helmeted mercenaries (suckers) from other countries do our dying for us, preserving our Empire while keeping "our" own hands nice and clean. Didn't you Brits once have special colonial military units made up of "stupid wogs" willing to die for the empire? That's the UN to "us".


I think that the reason [the UN] is a figleaf is that it simply does not have the power to overcome the US and big business, that's the problem, and I have no idea how to solve that problem, except by getting share holders and consumers to act.

Shareholders? Big business, the U.S. government, and the United Nations is doing exactly what the major shareholders want. (The minor shareholders--that poor sod with his 401k plan--don't count.)

Consumers? How does a consumer "affect" an oil giant? Does she resolutely decide to buy her petrol from another oil giant?

Do you know what a consortium is? That's when all of the oil giants join together to loot and plunder a defenseless country.

Consumers have nothing to say about what will happen to Iraq.


Redstar, don't think I'm offended, although your words were highly offensive, can't you just quit with the insults, even if they're not direct flaming?

Which words did I use that you consider "highly offensive" or "insulting"?
First posted at Che-Lives on August 27, 2003

Why don't you try responding to the points I made instead of pouting like the reformist?

I didn't call you a "fucking posh capi" just as I didn't call him a "traitor".

But did you actually expect to write words of praise for war-criminal Blair and think that no one would notice???
First posted at Che-Lives on August 27, 2003


The only difference between Hitler and Hussein is scale.

Perhaps you are simply unacquainted with the characteristics of the Third Reich.

German newspapers and radio constantly propagandized against the Jews. Did Iraq's media constantly propagandize against the Kurds?

But most importantly, where was Hussein's Auschwitz? Where was the cool, calculated intent to murder not just some but all of the Kurds? The Nazis, as even you ought to know, did not wish simply to kill some or most of the Jews...they wanted to kill them all.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no equivalent...which puts your remark about "scale" on the same level as everything else you have to say...just stupid and uninformed.


The fact you lied...

I posted my source above. Calling me a liar does not make me one.

I heroically resist the temptation to respond to your utterly incoherent reply to another critic. But this is too "good" to pass up...


It's simple kiddo, democracy as we know it may not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than revolution.

Better for Colonel Blimp, that's for sure!
First posted at Che-Lives on August 27, 2003

I'm not wrong about Colonel Blimp's "atrocity-mongering". Anfal was clearly not Auschwitz. Hussein almost certainly did not kill "hundreds of thousands" of Kurds, though his regime did kill tens of thousands, many in the course of armed struggle. As I said, he was a bastard.

But Colonel Blimp is "on a mission" -- his desire to defend U.S.-British imperialism forces him to paint Hussein in the darkest possible colors...Nazi brown, to be specific.

Here is an interesting non-parallel: when the Nazi regime collapsed in defeat, were there significant numbers of Germans who went over to guerrilla resistance to the allied occupation?

Practically none.

And yet we hear constantly that some (much?) of the Iraqi resistance consists of "supporters" of Hussein and the Baath Party.

If Hussein was indeed "the devil incarnate", how is it that there appear to be a substantial number of people "who evidently want him back"???

Now the Iraqi people are clearly worse off than they were under Hussein...and Colonel Blimp tells them to stop resisting and obey their new masters.



A reformist is someone who believes that a greater measure of social justice can be obtained within the parameters of liberal democracy and liberal property rights; i.e., a social democrat. Such people would not intend to use the existing system so as to initiate fundamental changes to it.

No, actually that's wrong. German Social Democracy originally did "intend to use the existing system so as to initiate fundamental changes to it".

So you are well within the parameter of classical reformism.

But even if there were a way for you to wiggle out of that one (there isn't), your repudiation of class struggle and even the existence of classes at all would be sufficient by itself to "qualify" you for the "honor" of reformist.


A nutter like yourself apparently thinks that 'an imperialist' is anybody who does not categorically denounce every single action of the US as being without a doubt the worst possible action. What twaddle, it shows a complete lack of regard for situational analysis.

"Situational analysis"? Is that going to be your excuse for supporting America's next imperial adventure, squire? Are you laying down a little advance groundwork in preparation for a "new revelation" about the "progressive content" of U.S. imperialism?

Just out of curiosity, do you agree with Colonel Blimp that the British Empire was "nasty but necessary"?


Liberal Democracy is the correct term, used in all serious political philosophy; the only places 'bourgeois democracy' is used is in silly arse communist polemic...

Yes, and we "must" be careful to observe the terminological norms of "serious" (bourgeois) "political philosophy".

Only "silly arses" take communist ideas seriously, right, squire?


This in reality sums up your actual intention. You would like to be seen as a luminary within socialist circles. You have no real desire or plan to promote socialism. Your desire is to promote yourself.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say, squire.

You're the boss!
First posted at Che-Lives on August 28, 2003


Human Rights Watch: 50-100,000

That appears to me to be the most credible figure (of murdered Kurds) at this point.

I hope people understand the psychology of "body count" arguments. The more you can exaggerate, the more "evil" your opponent can be made to look.

We live in an age in which things are not considered "real" unless you can "put a number on it". Unfortunately, the number does not have to be accurate.

The wide range of estimates, most of them from organs of U.S. imperialism, can hardly be taken seriously. When, after all, have they ever told the truth about anything?


You tell that to the Shi'a or the Kurds...try being a Kurd under Saddam Hussein and then tell me that his rule is better than the situation which exists now.

A bit of slight-of-hand, eh Colonel Blimp? I never suggested that being under Hussein was a "good thing" for the Kurds. For them, their present status as a separate American protectorate is clearly superior to anything they had under Hussein.

No, I was speaking of the hypothetical "average Iraqi"...and I was comparing their situation under Hussein and under American-British occupation.

I repeat, they are clearly much worse off.

And I predict: it will get even worse.

Thanks be to Bush and Blair.


Like I said, I don't like the empire, but it was a necessary step in human advancement.

This must be one of those "lesser evils" that the reformist talks about choosing.


You do know that Saddam's a national socialist by his own admission, so doesn't that make him a Nazi?!

Actually, no. The lack of racial ideology effectively clears Saddam's party of Nazism.

He's also off the hook for clerical fascism...he did privilege a minority version of Islam over the majority version. But I don't think it can reasonably be said that he emulated the practices of clerical fascist states like Spain, Hungary, Austria (before Hitler), Poland, etc.

I suspect the best parallel might be Juan Peron...a quasi-popular version of fascism. But I'm willing to entertain other reasonable suggestions...just forget the wacko "Hussein is the modern Hitler" nonsense. That's just imperialist propaganda.

One problem with using the word "fascist" to describe Hussein's regime is the complete lack of influence of the "private sector". Just about everything of economic significance in Hussein's Iraq was owned by the government (or by Hussein's inner circle).

In one of my "occupation blues" topics in Opposing Ideologies, I posted a link to a BBC story that reported that the occupation authorities intend to privatize just about everything...guess which companies in which countries have the "inside track"?


My political ideologies book does say that there's very little difference between national socialism, and not just the national socialism of the third reich, and fascism.

It's generally considered that German "national socialism" was one of several varieties of fascism and the only one (besides Japan) in which racist ideology played a predominate role.


But then, this is me talking and I have no credibility so you can discard that.

It grieves me to say this, but your hagiographic remarks about the war criminal Tony Blair have severely damaged your credibility.

Frankly, I am still shocked that someone of your intelligence could be taken in by such an obvious villain.

Of course, I have my own youthful follies to look back upon...I not only supported John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election, I actually campaigned for that imperialist turd.

Even though I was then older than you are now, I didn't know any better. There was no "Che-Lives" in those days. I thought imperialism was a "European" phenomenon. (The British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 was a "formative" event in my young life.) It took the "Bay of Pigs" (Playa Giron) invasion to teach me that imperialism was part of capitalism, period.

I also absorbed the lesson that all capitalist politicians are no good bastards! They all deserve the guillotine. No exceptions!


I do think that any attempt to change the first world by any means other than working within the parameters which 90% of the people in the first world see as fair is destined to failure. That does not make me a reformist, it makes me a realist.

Reformists always call themselves "realists". Among other advantages, it allows them to choose "lesser evils" with a "good conscience".

First posted at Che-Lives on August 28, 2003


The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.

This definition is both misleading and contradicts your assertion that Hussein was a Nazi.

The Third Reich was a capitalist country and, prior to the war, there was little in the way of "state control of the economy", certainly much less than in the USSR. What the Nazis actually did was spend a good deal of money in public works designed to lift the German economy out of the depression. There was almost no socialism in German "national socialism".

But more importantly, there was no clear-cut racist ideology in Hussein's Iraq. That is a core value of Nazism.

Where was the equivalent in Hussein's Iraq of a slogan like "The Jews Are Our Misfortune"...something that was beaten into German heads constantly from 1933 until the "final solution".

And, I repeat, where was Hussein's Auschwitz? Yes, there were certainly murderous campaigns carried out against the Kurds...but there was never any cool, calculated, organized "factory of death" with the purpose of exterminating all Kurds.

The only reason, Colonel Blimp, that you pound away on this "Nazi" theme is to justify the war crimes of your own empire.

You quote the dictionary definition of fascism to little purpose; I already agreed that Hussein was at least a semi-fascist.

But it serves as another example that dictionary definitions of complex political phenomena are inevitably over-simplified and misleading. Racism is not a "vital component" of fascism in general; only the German and Japanese variants of fascism included the concept of a "master race".


Do you also hate your western computer and your western food and your western house?

Here is one of the most self-revealing sentences you have ever posted to this board.

What you really love about imperialism is's comfortable for you.

When the "wogs" get uppity, that threatens your comfort. Clearly, they "must" be put back into "their proper station in life" even if terrible measures are required to accomplish this "useful" task.

That's the real meaning of "nasty but necessary".

And you ask why I bring up the "glorious" British Empire? It was not, as a matter of historical fact, the "evil Saddam" who "occupied Kurdistan". That "honor" goes to your beloved empire: it was the United Kingdom that sliced off a chunk of Kurdistan from Turkey and included it in its League of Nations mandated territory of Iraq...back in 1920 or 1921. Yes, because of the oil, what else?

Want to play "body count", do you? How many Iraqis died prematurely due to British occupation of Iraq and the quisling governments it imposed there between 1920 and 1958?

I know, no one keeps track of that. The daily atrocities of imperialism are just "business as usual"...they don't really "count".

Not when you're as comfortable as Colonel Blimp.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 29, 2003


It is a dictionary quotation, if you find it misleading I suggest you write a new version of the language.

You are a thick-headed sod, aren't you? I explained what was wrong with that definition...and you evidently found it utterly beyond your comprehension.


He also has invaded two other countries to expand his territory and oil reserves, which makes him a national expansionist.

No it doesn't.

Our normal conception of an "imperialist" country is one that conquers and rules another country, either by violence or through economic and political penetration.

I submit that Hussein's invasion of southern Iran and of Kuwait don't meet that definition.

Here's why.

It's my understanding that the small territorial ambitions of Hussein in southern Iran consisted of an area predominately inhabited by Arabs.

If that is truly the case, then would one want to argue that the early Italian state was "imperialist" because it wished to annex those parts of the southern Austro-Hungarian Empire that were inhabited primarily by Italians?

The early Italian kingdom was, in fact, imperialist (in Libya)...but the desire to unify their country is not "imperialist".

No one, to my knowledge, ever argued that Hussein intended to "conquer" Iran or install a quisling regime in Tehran.

Now, as to "Kuwait", a little history lesson. After World War I, the British and the French created a number of "nations" out of one people, the Arabs.

Central and southern Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, and the Arabian peninsula are one nation that was divided by imperialists in order to make ruling those conquered people easier.

Northern Iraq, inhabited by the Kurds, was "added" to Iraq by the British, because of the oil deposits of course.

There is little doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein saw himself as a "great heroic unifier of the Arab peoples" and the conquest of Kuwait as the first step in that direction.

That's not imperialism.

Naturally, the American-British imperialists saw this as a huge threat to their domination of the oil wealth of that region...and have reacted predictably.

The objective of the imperialist countries has always been to keep the Arabs weak, backward, and divided amongst themselves.

So far, they have been successful.

But material conditions in favor of a "united Arab republic" continue to mount. The Iraqi resistance is supported passively or actively throughout the Arab world, as is the resistance in occupied Palestine. Soon, the imperialists risk military intervention in Syria. The United States is already building a new base in one of the Gulf states. And so it will go.

When the monarchy in "Saudi" Arabia is overthrown, things will heat up even more.

Hussein was certainly a rather unpleasant fellow; "heroic nationalists" usually are. He was also not overly bright...setting up an independent Kurdistan early in his regime would have been a brilliant move.

Nevertheless, I predict that he will eventually become a "folk hero" of the who stood up to the imperialists and, though defeated, set the stage for the next level of struggle against them.

In 50 years or less, that famous statue in Baghdad will be restored.

The best case you can make is that Hussein was "imperialist" towards the Kurdish territories in Northern Iraq. That's not a "good thing" but it is rather insignificant compared to your "nasty but necessary" empire.


...his entire regime was geared towards alienating and destroying the Kurds. The Kurds were given no supplies from the government, and received none of its infrastructure or funding. It was basically sealed off in order to starve the Kurds out of Iraq, when that failed he decided to smoke them out with chemical weapons, at the cost of 100's of thousands of Kurdish lives...

I think you drastically overstate the matter, though it's quite possible that some of those things happened.

But there was no calculated attempt to exterminate all of the Kurds.


...Its called ethnic cleansing, like the German Nazi's tried...

The Germans did indeed make extensive use of ethnic cleansing, particularly directed against the Poles. They tried to kill all the Jews. Are you so stupid that you cannot tell the difference?

Or is it rather that you understand the difference quite well...but hope to blur it and make it fuzzy in order to defend your imperial masters?


I don't justify the crimes of any empire, but you justify and make excuses for Saddam Hussein, defend his servants who killed hundreds of thousands at his command, making you a cold blooded supporter of Fascism and Nazism.

On the other hand, a paragraph like that suggests rather strongly that stupidity is one of your shortcomings.

And you have "justified" the crimes of your own empire--you said it was "nasty but necessary"...that sounds like justification to me!


Imperialism doesn't effect me remotely, dumb ass, how could it?

What about that "western computer, western food, and western house"? Where did that wealth come from? Didn't four centuries of empire--loot and plunder--have "something" to do with it?

Or do you think the fairies left it for you?

quote: would hate that the Kurds got some independence, wouldn't you!

Actually, I expressed support for an independent Kurdistan many months ago.

Not that I expect you were paying attention.


It was also not the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom is a modern name for the British Empire.

Who gives a bloody rat's ass what it was called?

quote: for deaths in factories, i am sure amnesty international would be able to tell me.

Amnesty International does not record "factory deaths" and did not exist at all in the period 1920-1958. The link you posted mentions only an Iraqi rebellion against British rule in 1920, suggesting 1,000 military casualties and not even saying on which side.

As usual, you missed the entire point of my question: how many Iraqis died prematurely due to the domination of their country by British imperialists, 1920-1958?

No one knows, of course...just as we will not know anything about British atrocities against Iraqis taking place right now for quite a while, maybe several decades.

Still, with a little luck, Blair might live long enough to find himself in the dock at the new War Crimes Tribunal. By that time, no doubt, you yourself will be an experienced attorney and fully equipped to provide him with an able defense.

You already have the right outlook, of course.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 29, 2003


No, that's largely because the UK economy has a very strong financial sector which brings a large income to the nation, allowing a high standard of living.

And that's not loot and plunder? *Laughs*


Yes, but he didn't do it for that reason. He invaded Kuwait, if not Iran as well, for its oil and that is widely accepted.

I do not know whether this "reason" is "widely accepted" or not, but it's a stupid explanation. Iraq already had more oil than it could pump.

I think the nationalist explanation makes more sense. An interviewer of Hussein once asked him if he considered himself the "modern Nasser". He replied "Nasser was the early Saddam Hussein". (Low self-esteem was not one of Saddam's problems.)


When they [Germany] expanded faster than Jews could leave they decided to exterminate all those within their borders.

And had the Germans won the war, is there any doubt that they would not have gone on to kill all the Jews, everywhere???


I doubt I will ever be a lawyer, to do that I would have to study law at uni, and I want to do history.

Alas, Mr. Gibbon, you may just as well have scribbled to have a reader like Colonel Blimp.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 29, 2003


I fully support the Cuban revolution, and Fidel. Would any 'reformist'?

Even some bourgeois liberals have done so in the past...though I don't know about the present.

But that's all beside the point.

As is the document from Lenin that you linked us to...

I already outlined what you clearly have in common with classical reformism and you have not denied those links. All you have said is "well, that's true, but it doesn't make me a reformist". Yes, it does.

You think that "reformist" is just an "insult" bourgeois democracy is just an "insult" or a "wacko term".

The fact that these terms actually have pretty clear historical referents both to Marxists and anarchists escapes you.

I do not deny the sincerity of your "socialist" convictions...just their validity.

As to imperialism, you have been free at any time in this discussion to make a clear, straightforward denunciation of imperialism in general and U.S.-British imperialism in Iraq in particular. You have also been free to attack Colonel Blimp's support of U.S.-British imperialism.

You have done neither; the only reasonable interpretation of that failure on your part is that you are don't want to "rule out" support for some future imperialist war.

This is a path nearly always followed by reformists. Weasel first, then capitulate to their own ruling class.

The historical logic of your position is that, sooner or later, you will support imperialist war. Of course, this is one of those situations that I would be delighted to be proven wrong about.

Once in a while, people glimpse the abyss and draw back...perhaps you will be such a person.

But it looks pretty bad, frankly. Your rejection of both class struggle and class analysis as well as your faith in "liberal democracy" doesn't leave you with much in the way of resistance to imperialism.

A bourgeois concept like "situational analysis" just tempts you further down the capitalist road...leading you into foolish statements like: a victory for U.S. imperialism "doesn't hurt" the struggle for "socialism".

So we'll see what happens...

Meanwhile, Colonel Blimp is not, in my view, any kind of leftist at all and has clearly demonstrated that both in this thread and in many others on Iraq, British imperialism, Ireland, etc.

I wasn't here, of course, for his early posts, but I frankly doubt that he ever was any kind of a leftist. True, he may admire Robert Owen, the Chartists, probably the Webbs, G.B. Shaw and other Fabians, possibly the post-World War II Labour what? He also admires Napoleon and Robert E. Lee and who knows who else.

His user name suggests a desire to appear "especially militant"--perhaps he did once envision himself carrying a weapon "in the cause".

But that was then--this is now. In Opposing Ideologies, one of the cappies is already tentatively supporting his views on Iraq...or, if you prefer, he is tentatively supporting the cappie. Both "agree" that Saddam Hussein was either "a nice guy" or "the new Hitler"...that those are the only positions possible and therefore the U.S. and Britain were right to invade and occupy that country.

It's my view that he should be restricted to Opposing Ideologies...but that is a decision that is ultimately in the administrator's hands, not mine.

In the meantime, I can promise that whenever he goes into "Colonel Blimp" mode and starts apologizing for U.S. and British imperialism, I will be all over his arse about it.

As long as I am here, no one is going to express support for imperialism and "get away with it."

That's just the way it's going to be.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 30, 2003


Yes I think reformist is an insult when applied to me. It says 'not really a Marxist'.

But you're not a Marxist! You have said that class analysis and class struggle are no longer relevant.

What's left? Do you do "dialectics" in your spare time? *Laughs*


No, I have not said that Bourgeois democracy is insulting.

You have indeed said it. Don't you even remember what you post? Does everyone who talks to you have to go back and remind you of your own words?


There is no myth about what you call 'bourgeois democracy' but which is more properly called representative democracy. Frankly inventing an alternative (and in your eyes pejorative) label for something which already has a perfectly good one is the hallmark of the zealot. It shouts loud and clear that you lack the ability to explain why the thing itself is bad and are resorting to demonisation.

Posted by you on August 25, 2003!


The fact that the term 'bourgeois democracy' is an old insult does not change the fact that it is one.

Posted by you on August 25, 2003!


My choice of one term (representative democracy) which perfectly adequately communicates what I mean to absolutely everyone, rather than a term (bourgeois democracy) which many will interpret basically as insult...

Posted by you in this thread on August 28, 2003!!!

Pull yourself together, squire, and try to remember what you said a few days ago.


I definitely do not rule out the possibility that I might support a war initiated by 'an imperialist power'.

Now it seems to me that the most charitable interpretation of a statement like that is weaseling.

That is, you don't come out and actually endorse a particular imperialist war (like Colonel Blimp) but you refuse to rule out the possibility that you "might" do it.

If I, for example, said that I "thought Stalin's gulags were pretty bad" but I wouldn't "rule out the possibility" of using them myself--depending on "situational analysis" of course--would you not be among the first to point out that I was weaseling on gulags as a method of "struggle against counter-revolution"?

And wouldn't you be right about that?


Not all 'imperialist powers' are either equally insidious or equally 'imperialist' or equally 'evil'.

I have said so in many threads. In this thread, I pointed out repeatedly that Iraq was not even remotely in the "same league" with U.S. imperialism...the fortress of world reaction.

Do you question that evaluation?


Both I and he have made clear and unmistakable denunciations of imperialism in this thread and countless times elsewhere.


I don't deny that both of you would be resolutely opposed to German imperialism 1933-1945. I don't deny that you are opposed to U.S. imperialism directed against Cuba. (I think if the Americans and the British invaded Cuba, Colonel Blimp would be in a very tough spot!)

But these are particulars; what about principle?


As a matter of fact I have consistently said that I would have abstained completely from any judgment on whether the USA was right to attack Iraq had the UN mandated it. I would have acknowledged that my understanding of the facts was insufficiently complete for me to make a decent judgment call.

So may it be assumed that should the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China agree that Iran or North Korea or Syria or even Cuba are in need of "regime change" whether they like it or not, you will be "neutral"?

Imperialist unity plus blue helmets is sufficient to obtain your passive acquiescence, if not your positive support, yes?



In conclusion - You are an obsessive idjit who can spout dogmatic bollox.

Reformists consider any sort of principled political behavior as "dogmatic"'s their dogma.

Just one quote from Colonel Blimp, but it's a "beauty"...


Like I have been saying for months, I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein, not the occupation.

...or, "I'm in favor of eating shit, though I don't like the taste."
First posted at Che-Lives on August 30, 2003


Every one of the quotes you so laboriously dug up shows me saying that YOU intend the word 'Bourgeois democracy' insultingly...

I thought I made it clear that it has been a simple descriptive term among Marxists for at least a century or more. The only ones who would find it "insulting" on its face are capitalists or their supporters.

Since you, like most reformists, wish to avoid "insulting" the don't like the term. You prefer terms like "representative democracy" or "liberal democracy"...which attempt to hide the class content of modern political institutions.


Weaseling means attempting to avoid stating one's true position by evading a question.

No, it means avoiding a "true position" altogether.

You don't have a position on imperialist war; you may oppose, be neutral, or support such a war depending on your "situational analysis".

That's weaseling.

quote: have stated in effect that US imperialism is the worst thing ever in the history of the world.

No, I haven't said that either. What I said was that U.S. imperialism is the fortress of world reaction right now. The "worst thing ever in the history of the world" is meaningless jabber.


It may come as a shock to your giant ego but you are not the fount of all wisdom.

Compared to you and Colonel Blimp, I might as well be.


NO, you may not assume that I would be neutral if the 5 countries you mentioned agreed to attack Cuba, NK etc. Why would anyone assume that? I assume because you interpret me saying 'If the UN had authorised the attack on Iraq...' as meaning 'I will always support UN decisions'. I have of course said no such thing.

It was a question, squire. You answered it...leaving us once again wondering where you actually stand or will stand when America launches its next aggression.


One could argue forever about what it is to be a Marxist. But I don't see anyone except a simplistic zealot maintaining that any deviation from Marx's analysis disqualifies one.

An argument that I have not maintained, of course. Nevertheless, you have reproached me more than once for arguing that class struggle is the fundamental characteristic of class society.

You have strongly implied that "we are all bosses in some sense" in the advanced capitalist countries. You have strongly implied that the capitalist class "should be our friends"...or we should be "friends" with them.

That seems to be to be a total repudiation of Marx, not just an "update" or "adjustment", comparable to Gould's re-interpretation of evolutionary theory. Gould is clearly within the broad spectrum of Darwinism.

You are clearly outside the spectrum of Marxism. Your support of "socialism", if I may be permitted to speculate, would appear to rest on humanitarian motives. Possibly, you also think that "socialism" would be more economically productive than capitalism. It would be a "healthier" society, I think you once said.

All well and good, to be sure, but not Marxism. You might convince a Jimmy Carter with arguments like that...I think most workers would think you were a "bleeding heart liberal" and definitely not to be trusted in any position of authority.

After all, if the use of honest terminology--bourgeois democracy--has to be avoided lest it hurt the bosses' feelings, imagine how much more they'd be hurt by any significant redistribution of wealth.

So you probably wouldn't do it...though you'd apologize profusely and sincerely.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 31, 2003


Do you see Americans (just as a for example), or most of them, as enemies? or as potential converts?

Neither one, actually.

First, I don't believe in "converts" in the sense that you are using the word: a person convinced by argument alone that one world-outlook is superior to another.

It wasn't the "pure logic" of Marx that made me a was the fact that what he had to say made sense in the light of my own life experiences.

As regards Americans as "enemies", at the present time and from the standpoint of the international working class, Americans should be regarded in the same way as Germans were regarded in 1939.

In particular, any attack on American mercenaries, corporate assets, etc. is objectively progressive regardless of the subjective motivations of the attacker...because it weakens U.S. imperialism even if by only a tiny amount.

That even applies to American civilians working abroad as agents of the U.S. military or U.S. corporations. The American construction worker in occupied Iraq is "a fair target"--whether he knows it or not, he is objectively serving the interests of U.S. imperialism.

On the "home front", things are different. The growing numbers of minimum-wage or near minimum-wage workers, the more or less permanently unemployed (or employed in the "underground" economy), the homeless, those contained more or less permanently in a ghetto of poverty, etc. are, in my view, the future of the working class in America. That is what things are going to be like.

I expect these folks will, over the coming decades, become the nucleus of the revolutionary proletariat in the U.S. and other advanced capitalist countries.

Not because I or someone else "preaches" to them and "converts" them to Marxism, but because material conditions demand a revolutionary outlook. Conscious revolutionaries can stimulate this process, in the fashion that a catalyst speeds up a chemical reaction. But, in both cases, it happens anyway.

Even though a great many and perhaps most of these people still support U.S. imperialism at least passively, they are not "enemies" and will be the first to defect from the "patriotic consensus". They are half-alienated from American society already (they rarely vote, for example) and regard most authority figures with contempt.

Workers with "good jobs" in America are naturally much more patriotic and, as long as they don't have to fight, see nothing much to criticize in one victorious war after another.

It is when the wars don't turn out so good that doubt begins to gnaw at their world-outlook. It is the beginning of their class-consciousness...a process that revolutionaries can stimulate but that would happen anyway.

Meanwhile, the capitalist class itself and its managerial elite are growing steadily more reactionary, both in terms of direct attacks on the living standards of the working class and in terms of a more aggressively imperialist foreign policy.

Without fooling around with fine distinctions, it is clear that the corporate elite in the United States is the main enemy of the working class at home and abroad.

They and their political servants deserve the guillotine.


Most Americans would think that calling their system of democracy 'bourgeois democracy' was intended insultingly. Almost all would regard anyone using the term as obviously a dogmatic nutter. Few would listen to an explanation. That's no way to gain respect and converts.

Actually, if I were speaking to someone without a background in left terminology, I wouldn't use the phrase "bourgeois democracy"...specialized terminology is usually not a good idea when speaking with non-specialists.

But I would convey the concept. I might say, for example, that "America is democracy for the rich and dictatorship for everyone else". That's what bourgeois democracy is, after all.

There is a whole thread in the Politics forum about important it is for us to find the "right way" to "market our ideas", etc.

For the most part, I think that is a bullshit approach. Communists are not salesmen. Communism is not a commodity.

Granted that some ways of saying things are better--that is, clearer--than others, I think our over-all approach should be blunt honesty.

If people think we are "nutters" now, and most probably will, they will change their views of our ideas when their material conditions change...for the worse.


You don't refuse to use the artifacts of capitalism yourself. You are doing so now. But for some twisted reason you'll insist that no-one should use a few of them which you just arbitrarily decree they should not.

You've brought this silliness up before. "If you use a computer, you are spreading capitalism" or some such rot.

I repeat: technology is (for the most part) ideologically neutral. A screwdriver does not have an ideology; neither does a computer.

The "tools" that you want to use--bourgeois electoral politics, for example--are of a very different character. They are saturated with bourgeois ideology and positively reek with the stink of corporate dominance. They are the toxic waste dump of rotten political ideas.

It is not an "arbitrary decree" on my part stemming from a "twisted" motive that lies behind my total condemnation of such "tools"'s plain damn common sense.

Using bourgeois elections to "spread" our ideas makes about as much sense as building a bridge out of horse turds.


Not everything America does is bad; not everything it produces is. The American system is bad, it needs changing; but that's all.

Sounds like another weasel has arrived! Get specific, squire. Exactly what are the "good" things America does? What exactly inspires a rousing chorus of America the Beautiful on your part?

This should be interesting.


Class struggle in Marx's sense is meaningless in the first world simply because the clear distinctions between classes that he was envisaging don't exist anymore.

A totally false view of things in my opinion. But true or false, it clearly leaves you outside of the Marxist paradigm.

You are not a Marxist!


NO, I have not said that the 'capitalist class' should be our friends. I've said that such a distinct class barely exists...I see no special reason to deliberately alienate them for no better reason than they disagree with me.

Instead of class struggle, your "paradigm" is one of simple disagreement.

I repeat the obvious: you are not any kind of a Marxist, period!


The difference between you and me is that I see people where you see abstract concepts...people is who we have to convince.

Yes, I have a coherent theoretical outlook which goes under the label of Marxism or communism.

You are just winging it.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 31, 2003


‘Selling’ Marxism is no different than selling anything else.

I think that sums up your problem right there, squire.

You're a salesman; I'm a revolutionary.

We have different objectives.


Not to put too fine a point on it, many unemployed are so because they actually are social malcontents and selfish, lazy tarts.

Sounds like my kind of folks. Outsiders.


Social provision for the unemployed is very much different now than in 1850. As a consequence the people are different too.

I have first-hand experience with "social provision for the unemployed" in America. I respectfully suggest that you are full of shit.


You are just asking to be demonised.

I have always been demonized by the defenders of the prevailing social order. Why should I expect anything else?


In short you are having a pop because I don’t choose to join in your whinging about how everything is unfair. Guess what? Many things in life are unfair.

The more you yap, the more you sound like a boss. Coincidence?


However that does not mean there are no good bits [about America], some examples :

Freedom of religion,
A welfare program,
Foreign aid,
Creation of programs to increase crop yields,
Development of medicines,
Relative wealth for its people,
Relative security for its people,
I could go on and on.

Please don't!

I will not attempt to "refute" this ridiculous list...I will simply point out how much it parallels the kind of crap posted about the United States by pro-capitalists in Opposing Ideologies.


I shall continue to call myself a Marxist Socialist.

And I shall continue to call you a reformist.


Whether it ‘conforms to Marxism’ is utterly irrelevant to anybody who cares about people.

I've heard it all before, squire. There was another reformist who used to be here and was always saying that I "don't care about people".

I certainly can't deny that there's some people I "don't care about".
First posted at Che-Lives on September 2, 2003
· Welcome
· Theory
· Guest Book
· Hype
· Additional Reading
· Links

· Contact
Latest Theory Collections
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
Defining Theory Collections
· What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
· Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
· Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
· A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
· The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
· Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
· What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
· What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
· A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
· On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
Random Quote
...the heart of the Leninist appeal is not that different from the appeal of any bourgeois political group: "don’t follow other leaders, follow us!" Hardly a message to inspire confidence.  

Search Internet
Search Website
· There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.

Copyright © 2003-2006 -- Some rights reserved.