Marching with Stalinists

TomF

It seems that the left-wing, as is very well represented on this board, forget about the concept of Original Sin, of man's fundamentally flawed nature and expect that Communism or Socialism, if only given a real chance, will produce something near to an earthly paradise. The reality, exemplified by The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba and so on, never comes up to the mark and so are rejected as not being really Communist or Socialist states. And so the ideal is kept burning bright. The United States of America, on the other hand, being the opponent of Communism and Socialism, is seen as the focus of all that is evil.

Taking my cue from moderators who have posted nice long columns from newspapers to support positions they favour, I am hoping the below will remain on the board for longer than a few hours. It's great reading, and was lifted from the Washington Post newspaper.

washingtonpost.com

Marching With Stalinists

By Michael Kelly

Wednesday, January 22, 2003; Page A15


The left in America has for a long time now resembled not so much a political movement as a contest to see how many schismatics could dance on the head of a pin, a conversation that has gone from being national to factional to simply eccentric. At some point, progressive politics reached a state where freeing Mumia was considered critical and electing a Democratic president was considered optional.

Then came Sept. 11, and the left found itself plunged into a debate on a subject of fundamental importance. And this was a debate in which to be of the left was to be, by definition, involved: In al Qaeda and in the Taliban and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, liberal civilization faced an enemy that represented nearly every evil that liberalism has ever stood against.

What was the left going to do? A pretty straightforward call, you might say. America has its flaws. But war involves choosing sides, and the American side -- which was, after all, the side of liberalism, of progressivism, of democracy, of freedom, of not chucking gays off rooftops and not stoning adulterers and not whipping women in the town square, and not gassing minority populations and not torturing advocates of free speech -- was surely preferable to the side of the "Islamofascists," to borrow a word from the essayist and former man of the left, Christopher Hitchens.

Which is the point: Hitchens is a former man of the left. In the left's debate, Hitchens insisted that progressives must not in their disdain for America allow themselves to effectively support the perpetuation of despotism, must not betray the left's own values. Others -- notably the political philosopher Michael Walzer, the independent essayist Andrew Sullivan, New Republic writer Jonathan Chait and New York Observer columnist Ron Rosenbaum -- also made this argument with great force and clarity.

The debate is over. The left has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants. Those who could not stomach this have left the left -- a few publicly, as did Hitchens and Rosenbaum, and many more, I am sure, in the privacy of their consciences.

Last weekend, the left held large antiwar marches in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere. Major media coverage of these marches was highly respectful. This was "A Stirring in the Nation," in the words of an approving New York Times editorial, "impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers."

There is, increasingly, much that happens in the world that the Times feels its readers should be sheltered from knowing. The marches in Washington and San Francisco were chiefly sponsored, as was last October's antiwar march in Washington, by a group the Times chose to call in its only passing reference "the activist group International Answer."

International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary -- the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion. International ANSWER today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam Hussein and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.

This is whom the left now marches with. The left marches with the Stalinists. The left marches with those who would maintain in power the leading oppressors of humanity in the world. It marches with, stands with and cheers on people like the speaker at the Washington rally who declared that "the real terrorists have always been the United Snakes of America." It marches with people like the former Black Panther Charles Baron, who said in Washington, "if you're looking for an axis of evil then look in the belly of this beast."

The Times' "mainstream" Americans marched last weekend with people who held signs comparing the president and vice president of their country to Hitler, and declaring, "The difference between Bush and Saddam is that Saddam was elected," and this one: "I want you to die for Israel. Israel sings Onward Christian Soldiers."

March on.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
It seems that the left-wing, as is very well represented on this board, forget about the concept of Original Sin, of man's fundamentally flawed nature and expect that Communism or Socialism, if only given a real chance, will produce something near to an earthly paradise.

One could equally argue that it seems the right - also well represented on this board - forget that simply because a system is the best available at present does not mean it is the best that can be, or that it can be improved.

Furthermore, the concept of original sin (if you believe in it), or of mans fundamentally flawed nature mean that capitalism will also not produce anything near to an earthly paradise. What is relevant is how tolerant systems are to withstanding abuse and how well they cope with man's imperfection which has neither anything to do with your starting point, nor the realities of

Similarly, using the classification logic form the article you quote, it would appear that the right have also forgotten the use of concepts like reason in presenting arguments. For example :

The left has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants

So, apparently the lack of realism within the left faction has resulted in them supporting tyrants and fascists as a means to a greater end....and this is clearly a bad thing.

Of course, we should ignore all the tyrants and fascists that the Right have supported (and continue to support) because thats different. We should ignore the fascists and tyrants that the US is vigorously courting at the moment to get their assistance in fighting Saddam - those tyrants and fascists are fine.

The left are dodgy people - they march with Stalinists. Their marches are sponsored by a group who...apparently...support the government who instigated the Tiannamen Square massacres.

Shocking.

Whats more shocking is that the author neglects to mention how much investment the right has poured into that same nation, and how desperate it is to open its markets up so that it can sell in there. I'm sure thats fine...its okay for the right to monetarily help these fascists and tyrants to stay in power as long as you shake your finger at the really unignorable atrocities and say "naughty" in a carefully measured tone of voice.

In fact, if you look at the criticisms levelled at "the left" (which is such a stupid generalisation of "those who oppose the war" that I honestly find it difficult to take the article seriously at all), you will find that each and every one of them can equally be applied to the right (which clearly means "whose who support the war" by the same logic).

Ultimately, that piece has nothing to do with left or right.
It has to do with another pro-war lackey wanting to write a vitriolic article to villify those daring to use their freedom of speech in a manner he doesnt agree with. Forget reason. Forget logic. Just make some sweeping generalisations, using glaringly incorrect labels cause they may carry more weight, land some nice cutting insults, and call it journalism.

jc

Cork

(UN) Resolution 1441 full and immediate:
full and immediate compliance;
full and immediate co-operation;
full and immediate disarmament of his weapons of mass destruction

Saddam is an tyrant who has is very wealthy according to Forbes magazine & the ordinary Iraqi has to live under his dictat.

These boards seem to be over represented by lefties - when you compare it to the vote they got in the last General Election. But - there is no rule that discussion boards need to represent all views.

"Marching with Stalinists". I believe that people need to look at who they are marching side by side with. Whether these are stalinists, marxists, communists or socialists.

Some of these groups would be anti-american no metter what. I think Mary Harneys recent speech really hit the nail on the head.

It is not only Resolution 1441 that Saddam has not complied with. He has not complied with many resoultions.

But this really does not metter to these groups.

George W is the real baddie. He has control over both houses of congress in the US. He has increased his mandate since the last US presential election.

The left worldwide need to ask themselves 3 simple questions:

Do you agree with Resolution 1441?

Do you think the Iraqi people deserve Saddam?

If Resolution 1441 is not complied with - What authority will the UN have?

The left has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants

Opposition by some groups on the left to the US - is predictable.

They are the usual suspects. In 20 years - they'll still be going on about the evils of the US.

bugler

Without any reason whatsoever, right Cork?

And since when has the U.N ever had any authority of its own? Come on now, noone on this board is that naive are they? Until everyone agrees to be bound by the decisions of the U.N regardless of personal interest then the U.N has no authority. How much authority can a body whose really important decisions are made according to the whims of a select few powerful countries really have? Am I missing out on something here? Does the U.S or Russia abide by the U.N's decisions? Ooops I forgot, those countries don't count, as bonkey pointed out. Because, they're...like ok and stuff, on our side and all that. "The U.N must show its authority and impose its will, unless the country on the receiving end is in fact ok, and like us"


When people who pontificate along the same lines as this start making posts detailing Israel's violations of U.N resolutions and demanding that the U.N enforce these vigorously I'll start listening. Course you won't, because Israel's ok, right?

There, Michael Kelly would have loved that.

the ordinary Iraqi has to live under his dictat.

nope, they can leave the country, or rebel. Its their choice to remain where they are.

These boards seem to be over represented by lefties - when you compare it to the vote they got in the last General Election. But - there is no rule that discussion boards need to represent all views.

Dependent on which subject is being debated, you'll find multiple opinions. I don't think most people that frequent here, can be classified into certain boundries, of the left, or the right. Their opinions may support either side, dependent on their own feelings for the subject. For example, in Iraq, i'm anti-War, and yet, I'm pro-Israeli. It depends on whats been discussed.

Do you think the Iraqi people deserve Saddam?

Be a little more realistic. Do i deserve to be rich? do i deserve to be poor? You only deserve what you work for. The Iraqi people have not worked to get rid of saddam, so yes, they deserve him.

Do i pity them, for having saddam? Yes, i Do.

If Resolution 1441 is not complied with - What authority will the UN have?

The UN doesn't have any authority any more. The UN's Authority stemmed from the larger nations that provided the troops/economic tools etc. Now that America is going its own way, the UN is going the way of "The League of Nations".

Éomer of Rohan

It seems that the left-wing, as is very well represented on this board, forget about the concept of Original Sin, of man's fundamentally flawed nature and expect that Communism or Socialism, if only given a real chance, will produce something near to an earthly paradise

You refer to communism and socialism as the dream of left wing supporters. This is innaccurate. Social Democracy etc are left wing also. What's more, for those of us who genuinely do hope for communism/socialism, you ignore one fundamental flaw in your argument; we are atheists. We do not believe in Original Sin nor in the flawed nature blah di blah. It is nothing to do with forgetting. We are as aware as the next man of crimes and so on but there would be laws under a communist/socialist state too you know.

I personally think that between TomF and Cork and their adherents, the right wing is over represented here.

How much American literature and news do you people absorb? If you had any knowledge of that country at all you would realise it is far from liberal (hint: the republicans are in power. Listen to some of the jingoism they spout about 'liberals')

With regard to Marching with Stalinists; so what? What is your point? On the day of the march in Belfast, the Irish Socialist Party marched alongside Quakers etc to protest against war - it does not mean we support their underlying aims, it simply means we have a common goal and exercise the same human right to achieve that goal.
Reading that article, I stand accused of supporting Saddam Hussein and other anti-american regimes regardless of their policies on human rights. What utter bulls**t. If any of you had an iota of intelligence you would realise that the very reason we criticise America is almost identical to the reasons she criticises other regimes (not to mention tries to annihilate them). Primarily this includes greed. I do not condone Saddam and as the Northern Ireland Spokesman for Youth Against War I can officially say that neither do the Socialist Party or their international affiliation, CWI and even the pro-Stalinist Communist Party of Ireland do not support Saddam et al.
The fact is we are resident in the West and thus when we exercise a right of protest, we are not saying that the ostensible aim (ie that of freeing Iraq) is wrong, we say that that is not the aim or that this is the wrong way to go about it or that our government and that of her allies have no right to be acting with any 'moral authority' given their past records in the fields of human rights and foreign affairs.
Moreover, I stand accused of being a reactionary to American power. I'm sorry but I despair at the outright stupidity behind this. We are not reacting to American Power; long before America was dreamed of there were anti-imperialists, this might be called an extension of anti-imperialism whether it be UK or French or US. And even that is a simplistic analysis; in reality we see a future of any one nation having such power as a future where the people will no longer have control; her power will ultimately destroy democracy (and make no bones about this, I am fiercely pro-democracy, but not a Capitalist one, a central socialist one).

SloanerF1

Originally posted by daveirl

On the whole board being left-wing. I wouldn't really agree with that. Recently the board has become dominated with the upcoming War in Iraq (understandbly) and the vast majority of people here don't agree with that policy. That doesn't make them left-wing really. Just anti the current US administrations policy.

I agree with daveirl. I was on the whole pro-US until the war issue came up.

In America you get labeled like in this piece if you are anti-war. Oh that means you support Al'Quaeda. Why? 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

Are we going back to McCarthyism, where anyone who dares question government policy is a Communist? I'm afraid I don't buy into the "with us or against us" argument.

Besides, even though I don't agree with Communism, I don't think it is evil or even entirely wrong. I just disagree with it for two fundamental reasons - because it doesn't work in practice (or at least hasn't yet) and because it generally encroaches on personal freedoms, especially economic freedoms.

The article speaks of liberal civilization. I wouldn't exactly call America liberal at the moment. The country is sacrificing human rights under the pretence of protecting itself.

625 people are being held in Guantanomo Bay without trial for the last 18 months. If they have a case try them and lock them up. If they are innocent let them go.

Hear, hear! This is the equivalent of the suspension of habeas corpus, and the Americans are only getting away with it because it is happening on Cuban soil.

I'm now rambling so I'll stop, but I'm most definitely not left-wing but I am a democrat but democracy isn't what is happening in the US

Indeed, it can hardly be called "the land of the free!"

Cork

The UN doesn't have any authority any more. The UN's Authority stemmed from the larger nations that provided the troops/economic tools etc. Now that America is going its own way, the UN is going the way of "The League of Nations".

But - What have you to replace it?

The UN is the best we got.

Dr. Blix's report when it comes out - will have to be accepted by France, UK, US & Germany.

The UN needs reform but it is functioning quiet well.

gandalf

Yes but Cork if Dr. Blixs report says Iraq is co-operating do you really believe the American Administration is not going to attack unilaterally and if they do will you condemn them for conducting a illegal attack under international law? Well ?

Gandalf.

(oh and answer without the soundbites etc please :rolleyes: )

Jes'Shout!

RE: quote:

---

"Are we going back to McCarthyism, where anyone who dares question government policy is a Communist?
__________________________________________________

If this question weren't so terrifyingly true, it would be funny. I have a number of associates in the States who are asking the very same question.

Bushism = Neo-McCarthyism=quasi-tyranny (perhaps more that just quasi)

Originally posted by gandalf
if Dr. Blixs report says Iraq is co-operating do you really believe the American Administration is not going to attack unilaterally and if they do will you condemn them for conducting a illegal attack under international law? Gandalf.

Oh, one thing that does fascinate me, is what the rest of the world can do, in retalliation for this..??
I know, the U.S veto would mean the UNSC could not authorise sanctions against the States.
But what if anything could be done to register an effective "punishment" on the U.S? and the UK? for their "illegal" attack on Iraq, and at what economic cost?
Consider Irelands problem alone with trade sanctions with those two countries....

The division this issue has created among the governments of Europe, has all but wiped out, the immediate chances of the E.U becoming an effective alternative world power.
It looks like more and more to me, that the current situation is turning out like it is, due in large part to there being a hawkish Republican government in the U.S.
(Not saying that , the road to war wouldn't be travelled, if Al, had got elected, but perhaps, a tad more reason, and patience, French and German style, might have been applied.)

Originally posted by Cork:
The UN is the best we got.
The UN needs reform but it is functioning quiet well.

Cork,the U.N security council only works well when, it has a concensus of opinion on what to do, particularily among it's permanent members as any one of the five of them can block any action.
Therefore, the UNSC as a police force is no more than a barter house, when the strategic interest of any one of it's permanent members is affected by a decision or a potential decision that it has to take.
These days, it's most powerfull member is increasingly thinking, it is an irrelevant outfit.
which brings me back to the interesting question, what if anything can the rest of the world realistically do about that?
mm

But - What have you to replace it?

I don't have anything. There is nothing at the moment. But before something better comes along, the UN would need to be dissolved.

The UN is the best we got.

Best of what? It has no power or respect anymore. When a number of nations can ignore its resolutions at will, it declares to the world that the UN is really an old boys club, whereby if you're powerful enough, you can ignore it.

Dr. Blix's report when it comes out - will have to be accepted by France, UK, US & Germany.

It doesn't have to be accepted. These countries can turn around and say that its all lies. But they won't.

But Cork, think on this. In the unlikelyhood that Blix says that Iraq has no WMD's, do you think the US will listen, and just leave? Will you stop shouting for the invasion of Iraq?

The UN needs reform but it is functioning quiet well.

functioning quite well? are u stoned? Its got no power anymore, unless America stands with it. Then its not the UN that has the power, but America. There is very little respect for the UN anymore, especially by the smaller countries, since they view the UN as being a way for the more powerful countries to split up the world amongst themselves. And in my opinion, they're right.

Oh, one thing that does fascinate me, is what the rest of the world can do, in retalliation for this..??

What can they do? The only way that the UN could force the issue with the US, is if the rest of the world decided to band together, including the UK. Whats the chances of that happening?

Everyone knows that the US has chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but theres no cries for inspections of the US compounds. Why? Because everyone knows theres almost no chance of enforcing it. This is in essence, why the UN is on its way out. When it can't control its strongest member, then it in trn is ruled by it.

Cork, if you disagree with me, can you discuss it, rather than throw out one liners, for a change? I've nothing against one liners, but they don't really make a point all that well.

Cork

But Cork, think on this. In the unlikelyhood that Blix says that Iraq has no WMD's, do you think the US will listen, and just leave? Will you stop shouting for the invasion of Iraq?

The only reason, why Saddam is making some belated moves at disarment at the moment is because of the US presence of troops out there.

The deployment of troops has been a success for Bush already.

Peace Protesters seem to ignore this.

Charlie Wolfe of RedFM gives the protesters an awful slagging on his radio show in Cork.

The Peace Protests have not really taken off in the European City Of Culture - 2005.

The only reason, why Saddam is making some belated moves at disarment at the moment is because of the US presence of troops out there.

True. And your point is?

The deployment of troops has been a success for Bush already.

No it hasn't. Since this deployment is not intended to intimidate Saddam. The build-up is for the invasion of Iraq. Until the invasion occurs, no success has occured.

Peace Protesters seem to ignore this

I don't think they are. They're certainly not ignoring the alliances claims against Iraq. Its just that they realise that these claims, are just that, claims. There has no real evidence presented to prove that Iraq is a threat to peace, or that it currently has a stockpile of WMD's. I think you conveniently forget that.

Charlie Wolfe of RedFM gives the protesters an awful slagging on his radio show in Cork

As is his right. Just as we can take the piss of him, if we want. doesn't make what we're saying correct, or incorrect, it just is.

The Peace Protests have not really taken off in the European City Of Culture - 2005.

Huh? Sorry u've lost me.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
I don't think they are. They're certainly not ignoring the alliances claims against Iraq. Its just that they realise that these claims, are just that, claims. There has no real evidence presented to prove that Iraq is a threat to peace, or that it currently has a stockpile of WMD's. I think you conveniently forget that.

Backing that up...I may be mistaken, but the unaccounted bombs which are being discovered buried appear to have been disposed of, but poorly. 6 were in functioning order, if what I think I heard on CNN was correct, but they did appear to be amid a large amount of poorly disposed munitions. It is possible that, at best. the Iraqi's were waiting for the right time to "discover" this cache to add to their case, but in any case, the stuff has - once again - been found and destroyed properly.

Bear in mind also that the Al-Samoud 2 missiles were declared - it just took the UN time to get around to them.

Every time the UN or US have made an ultimatum, the US have stressed how critical it is that Iraq comply. Every time they get compliance, the US seems to turn around and say how this compliance is empty and means nothing.

There's a whole lot of these nothings happening under the arms inspection, and they're mounting up to a pretty successful disarming mission, but the US is making louder and louder noises about war.

Perhaps its all posturing for intimidation, to achieve disarmament, and all this is just strategy, but I dont think anyone can be criticised for being worried that the threatening noises are indeed a precursor to an inevitable war, and/or that all of this is just a finely crafted attempt for the "legitimacy" (or international sanction) of said war.

What is most enlightening for me is watching the reaction of the US to various nations who have chosen to wait for UN sanction before comitting.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by bonkey
Bear in mind also that the Al-Samoud 2 missiles were declared - it just took the UN time to get around to them.
jc

One thing that won't go away from the back of my mind is how devious the politics around this *could* be.
Consider the possibility, that Sadam's regime, clever as it is, knew the game was up.
They regard a U.S invasion as inevitable.
The drip, drip approach to dis armament suits them well.

The cynic in me, is thinking, the Al Samoud missiles were handily contained in the Iraqi declaration so as to give the impression of co-operation, and frustrate the Americans timewise by breaking 6-8 a day ( at the very least, their JCB drivers should be sacked ).
In the Meantime , secretariats are working away busily creating a paper trail to present as evidence of the destruction of banned chemicals and nerve agents.

Thats what I think is going on there anyhow, but thats not to take, from equally devious planning on the American side.

mm

As far as i can see there is no real reason to be so unco-operative in the face of American Aggression. Why produce these items in dribs & drabs, when producing doesn't accomplish anything. Personally i'd hand what little i have over, and then when world attention is lookin at Iran (for when the US decide to move on), and start to produce some real weaponry.

The cynic in me is thinking, that Iraq doesn't have these weapons. Its also thinking, that they're searching the world for these weapons to purchase just so they can decomission them for the UN.

Its like the tests to catch a witch, with a dunking-stool. Dunk them in water, If they can breathe under water, they're a witch, otherwise they're mortal since they drowned.

Either way, Iraq is in trouble.

The cynic in me, is thinking, the Al Samoud missiles were handily contained in the Iraqi declaration so as to give the impression of co-operation, and frustrate the Americans timewise by breaking 6-8 a day ( at the very least, their JCB drivers should be sacked ).

And why should they destroy them in the face of american aggression...we are after all talking about them being capable of going 15-20 km further than allowed...The Americans want to try out all their new toys & the iraqis to get rid of theirs to make it a little bit handier?

Éomer of Rohan

Well put CQD

Originally posted by CQD
And why should they destroy them in the face of american aggression...we are after all talking about them being capable of going 15-20 km further than allowed...The Americans want to try out all their new toys & the iraqis to get rid of theirs to make it a little bit handier?

Ah, let me clarify.
what I'm thinking is,destroying Al samood's is visable dis armament.
This is enough for the other permanent members of the UNSC to block or frustrate,the U.S and the U.K's every move.
It's also enough to galvanise world opinion around the fact that inspections are working and that theres no need for war.
In that light, the U.S and the U.K look like war mongering aggressors.

Now in sadam's shoes thats not a bad situation to create, particularily if you expect , the U.S and U.K to go in anyway.
mm

true, to a certain extent. World opinion does have some effect on the UK, however the US have shown in the past that they don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

Consider this: there's already in the region of 275k troops surrounding iraq for the war. Another 125k have been called up for transport. There is going to be a total of 7 carrier groups ready also. This is displaying the US's power to hit targets so far from home. It also shows that despite disapproval from UN member states, the US can organise a war.

consider also that the US have moved a flight of Bombers to south Korea, as an intimidation gesture. The US is geared for war. I doubt very much that world opinion is going to make them pack up their troops and leave, even after an Iraq war, whereby they reveal plans to invade Iran.