|
Kavros posted:In all sincerity, I have to ask if I might be reading this wrong. Would you describe what China is doing with Tibetans and Uyghurs "giving ethnic minority groups autonomous republics" ? I guess he means this bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I guess he means this bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region What's fascinating with this and the other "autonomous regions" is that we see the classic pattern of the Chinese empire-send Han in to drown out the locals. This process has not been completed in Tibet; however, in Ningxia, Guangxi, and Inner Mongolia there is a Han majority, and in Xinjiang we are slowly approaching that. Back in the 19th century, in the Qing dynasty there was a movement of Han prisoners to "High Tartary" eg Xinjiang in order to more quickly incorporate it into the empire (Exile in mid-Qing China by Waley-Cohen is a genuinely good read) And isn't it so fascinating that the PRC kept the name of new frontier for the region?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
It isn't really a good idea to post an anti-imperialist thread in a forum where the majority of people think the USA is the good guys, who just happen to make a lot of mistakes, and that those mistakes benefit them massively is just a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:It isn't really a good idea to post an anti-imperialist thread in a forum where the majority of people think the USA is the good guys, who just happen to make a lot of mistakes, and that those mistakes benefit them massively is just a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
ronya posted:also there have been other things added to the leftist plate since 1919; feminism, greenism, and multiculturalism have all arguably gained a greater priority than vanguardism with the left at large. You might reject that. But you can't just say nothing about it. Of course. Any left party worth its salt will carry those values. But many orgs de-prioritize imperialism, or even capitalism, in pursuit of those issues, rather than welding them all together for a broad socialist, progressive, whatever you want to call it, ethos. This shouldn't be construed as my haranguing against "identity politics" or whatever. Movements that maintain chauvinisms of any kind are doomed to failure. Thanks for the additional info. I thought about including some stuff about the national question, but that would mean quoting Stalin and I knew that would be thwacking an already buzzing hornet's nest. That Monthly Review issue is really great, and that article especially. Worth a read by anyone. Jose posted:op how is what the chinese are doing in the south china sea not imperialism? That's a tricky situation, and speaks more to the need of stronger anti-imperial alliances between countries outside the metropole. China is being expansionist, certainly, and "testing the waters" (pun intended) by contesting the territorial jurisdictions laid down by the UN. If they had a better relationship with, say, Vietnam, a resolution to this dispute could be brokered in a way that benefits both parties. By leaving this role to international bodies dominated by the imperial powers, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. are allowing the West to handle their affairs. With that in mind, it's easy to see why China feels it needs to assert itself on its own. I'd consider Chechnya conflicts border disputes, not imperial actions, but I'm sure people will disagree with me there. ComradeCosmobot posted:I can't speak for all the anti-"anti-imperialists" in this thread, but I think a number of them (particularly in the Russian and Chinese cases) oppose the facile "anything against America" stance for this very reason. There's quite a few posts to this effect, and I think characterizing this position as "anything against America" is an oversimplification. Daesh, for instance, stands against the United States — when they're not looting American guns from intercepted arms shipments, that is — but I don't consider them a current or potential force for anti-imperialism. And not just because Islamist militias have a history of being funded by the CIA: Terroristic slaughter against the masses is no way to build a mass movement. The same goes for many hyper-nationalist groups in Africa and elsewhere. Much more is going on here than "America bad." Lightning Knight posted:I agree with the notion that actions speak louder with words, but I also think it's in the best interests of the political left to stand against American excess without endorsing Chinese state capitalism masked as "communism." So long as the American public is scared of socialism because we make it easy to attach it to regressive authoritarian powers, we won't get anywhere. Similar points to this one were brought up, so I'll just quote this. A friend of mine put it like this, and I think it bears merit, so I'll paraphrase: We have test cases for how much popular appeal such a movement would have relative to others. We can look at communist parties, socialist parties, whatever, in the imperial metropole and compare their membership numbers. Some, like the Communist Party of Great Britain — Marxist-Leninist, wear this type of anti-imperialism on their sleeve. They extend the hand of friendship to these countries, invite diplomats as guest speakers, etc. There's other parties in the UK, some Trotskyist, some another strain of Marxist-Leninist, what have you. But the ones which DON'T profess anti-imperialism of this sort have roughly the same membership numbers, and the same reach in their country, which is of course little to none. So, if disavowing these countries, coming out against them, taking the "Neither X nor Y" stance doesn't get you any more members than expressions of support, what is there to lose? I'm about to self-probate, due to being a man of honor, so I'll see everyone in six hours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:I'd consider Chechnya conflicts border disputes, not imperial actions, but I'm sure people will disagree with me there. Please explain how invading a country that isn't yours, suppressing the local population through a dehousing campaign conducted with artillery and incendiary bombing, and then installing your own strongman dictator isn't imperialism. Because to me it sounds like Imperialism.txt. I'll even let you take your pick of the half dozen or so times Russians have done all of those things to Chechens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:I have no interest in operating in the realm of idealism. No country is perfect — as I say, repeatedly — and an anti-imperialist bloc will have its share of mistakes and problems. They pale in comparison to those of the imperial powers. Outside of Russia's obvious incursions into Georgia and the Ukraine, I'm curious as to what you're referring to, specifically. How do you feel about Russia's incursions into Ukraine now with the rise of fascism there? They had originally said that one of the reasons for their actions was a worry about nazi factions gaining power and today we see in Ukraine that they in fact are after the US media denied for months that that was the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
OP's position is devoid of affirmative values, and completely determined by negative values - hatred for the United States. There is absolutely nothing else linking the DPRK to the Islamic Republic to Putin's Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:That's a tricky situation, and speaks more to the need of stronger anti-imperial alliances between countries outside the metropole. China is being expansionist, certainly, and "testing the waters" (pun intended) by contesting the territorial jurisdictions laid down by the UN. If they had a better relationship with, say, Vietnam, a resolution to this dispute could be brokered in a way that benefits both parties. By leaving this role to international bodies dominated by the imperial powers, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. are allowing the West to handle their affairs. With that in mind, it's easy to see why China feels it needs to assert itself on its own. Say, this wasn't very good! Here's another answer you could try that doesn't sound make you sound like a neotankie who will excuse literally anything an 'anti-imperialist' power does, but is still consistent with your original thesis: "Russia and China should not do these things". Kind of weird that you went straight to 'make excuses for authoritarian dictatorships' instead, but I guess it's late.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:OP's position is devoid of affirmative values, and completely determined by negative values - hatred for the United States. There is absolutely nothing else linking the DPRK to the Islamic Republic to Putin's Russia. That's the point of the OP, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:To better lay out my point, here is a list of interventions, military or otherwise, that the United States has performed since the Second World War. My source, Killing Hope, is exhaustively researched and required reading for anyone interested in the subject, though it is now a little out of date. Former State Department and CIA employee William Blum can only write so fast, after all, and it's not his fault he can't keep up with the latest bouts of pillaging and mayhem. Homework Explainer posted:"What about interventions from so-called anti-imperialists?" you may ask. A fair question. Here they are. You may notice some of these countries and dates coincide with previously listed ones. Why might that be, I wonder? Hahahahaha Poland is on the US's list and not the USSR's. Christ, it's the Grover Furr thread all over again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
I love the phrase "feels the need to assert itself", which is another display of rhetorical sleight of hand... - it hides that this usually means unprovoked military action, implicitly excusing it, - it blames an external party, dehumanizes it at the same time AND is impossible to prove - the perfect othering, - it removes agency from the victim of the "assertion", demeaning them as pawn of a simultaneously all-powerful and cowardly-secretive enemy, - it flat-out denies the value and necessity of diplomacy - for the argument to work, the only state of the world is constant war. Nothing here is new. It's all the same arguments. And another thing... Why the constant "we"? It reeks of artificial familiarity, and trying to lecture someone beneath you. That's a tone reserved for emotional appeals. This is not an attempt to promote viable ways of anti-imperialism, this is distortion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
I suspect I'm part of a demographic that doesn't have a lot to offer to this thread - Homework Explainer takes it as an article of faith that anything that leads to a more multipolar world is ipso facto good, and I take it as an article of faith that a multipolar world is extremely likely to be a major step down in global peace and quality of life. "Tear down the empire and then we'll see what happens" is not, I think, the correct order to do things. If there's not already a parallel structure in place, like a more functional UN, you're just going to have multiple lovely empires jostling for power rather than one lovely empire. This is not a feature, it is a bug. ...Oddly enough, though, I'm sort of fascinated the old Non Aligned Movement, precisely because it was an attempt to create a parallel power structure. I guess the question is, 1) was it a not-poo poo viable organization at the start (I lean towards "well, at least it was an attempt to reduce polarization in the crazy-rear end Cold War"), and 2) is it a not-poo poo viable organization now? I'm pretty loving dubious of its recent history as a viable alternative to the hamstrung UN dominated by the US (and to a lesser degree China/Russia/France), but it's an existing pseudo-alternative right along the lines of the OP's ideas... including the part where its General Secretaries for the last decade have been the leadership of Cuba, Egypt, and Iran, in that order. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
There is an argument to make that it doesn't really matter at this point if you think the world should become more multi-polar or not, but that it is already doing so and will continue to do so. Moreover, this process has accelerated since the mid-2000s because the public of many countries are looking for any other solution than the status quo probably because it is not working for them in a material sense, and it is easy to dismiss this desire as "sheer ignorance" but at some point you have to acknowledge a very clear pattern has developed. This isn't to say this the regional powers listed in the OP are "anti-imperialists" but at point something is going to fill in a power vacuum left by the current status quo and the only choice is if it should be a gradual readjustment or a sudden one. As for Sanders, I think he made a valiant attempt but there was almost no chance he could have become the nominee and I doubt he is going to get many meaningful concessions at the convention. If anything I would say the ultimate fate of Sanders' more or less show how little chance actual reform would happen in the US. For Russians in general, the reason they stubbornly refuse to get rid of Putin is that they generally believe Russia simply does has no chance to have a workable place in the world order otherwise. He may the "devil they know" but to them he is still preferable to the alternative (more of less a Yeltsin-like figure). The UN has always been a talking shop for the victors of WW2 to hash out their differences, and once you try to stretch its mandate significantly farther than that it falls apart. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
The world is not any more multi-polar now than it was ten years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The world is not any more multi-polar now than it was ten years ago. Not even you can actually believe that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Not even you can actually believe that. Where are the new poles?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It must be incredibly depressing to be a slavish adherent to a philosophy that's been dead for the better part of a century. Seriously, being an unrepentant Stalinist in 2016 is like being a homeopath. So ridiculous it'd be cute if your ideas weren't so destructive to the most vulnerable people in society. "people should not be poor when there is enough wealth to go around", "democracy should actually exist, the masses of people should actually participate in politics, and the marginalised and oppressed should take centre stage in that" are the two cornerstones of everything I think. It's impossible to pretend those things are destructive to vulnerable people unless your idea of vulnerable means oligarch. What I'd be interested to know is how you figure those ideas apparently died in 1916, what with them being put into practice and massively improving the vulnerable's lot for most of the following century. Which is why eastern europeans and Chinese people can all read and all live in buildings with running water and heating now. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I suspect I'm part of a demographic that doesn't have a lot to offer to this thread - Homework Explainer takes it as an article of faith that anything that leads to a more multipolar world is ipso facto good, and I take it as an article of faith that a multipolar world is extremely likely to be a major step down in global peace and quality of life. The Non-Aligned was significantly better than Communism and was a good-faith effort to form an international union of postcolonial countries pursuing British-influenced Fabian socialism, but since the neoliberal turn of the 1970s and the collapse of the Communist bloc it sort of no longer has any purpose. Letting Iran in is a pretty big joke too, at least Yugoslavia and Cuba weren't typical Communist states, Iran is no different than any other major Asiatic empire openly hostile to liberal values
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
I think the apparent rise of multipolarity is more psychological than reflective of real power gains on the part of China/Russia/Iran. The idiotic notion that liberals fell for in 1992 that everyone was going to become good free market liberals and recognize how awesome the USA is has only really been fully broken in the least few years or so. Russia has become much more aggressive even as it has declined in real power vs the US, China has only just now started to become more aggressive despite it steadily gaining in real power on the US for 20 years, Iran has been about the same in hostility and power
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Does OP think that Russia is perfectly justified in Crimea? Or in Georgia?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I think the apparent rise of multipolarity is more psychological than reflective of real power gains on the part of China/Russia/Iran. The idiotic notion that liberals fell for in 1992 that everyone was going to become good free market liberals and recognize how awesome the USA is has only really been fully broken in the least few years or so. Russia has become much more aggressive even as it has declined in real power vs the US, China has only just now started to become more aggressive despite it steadily gaining in real power on the US for 20 years, Iran has been about the same in hostility and power It's this. And even when you account the growth of Chinese hard power, it has peaked and is still far behind the USA, and has had immense difficulty transforming that hard power into actual concrete influence. The best they have been able to do is finance infrastructure and get a small international bank off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
asiatic empire
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Something I've been wondering about that I figure america apologists itt can answer: America's government talks about the threat of Iran all the time. It was a big thing in the republican debate, I remember, how Iran has to be encircled because they are scary. Could you tell me why that is? I'm asking because I am in Europe, which is much closer to Iran, and none of us have yet found a reason to be scared? Why be scared of Iran, in particular, and not, say, Canada? They're closer and probably have a better army.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Something I've been wondering about that I figure america apologists itt can answer: NUUUUUUUKES AND ISLAM
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Something I've been wondering about that I figure america apologists itt can answer: Iran isn't a direct threat to the US but they can gently caress up the middle east pretty badly, one of the chief possible methods being starting a regional nuclear arms race. Nobody was worried about the Iranian Navy blockading New York.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Something I've been wondering about that I figure america apologists itt can answer: American politicians use scare tactics to fire up their base and provide excuses to maintain a strong military presence on top of the largest oil reserves in the world. There is no reason to be scared of Iran. If we were actually scared of Iran we would be dropping really large bombs on them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Iran isn't a direct threat to the US but they can gently caress up the middle east pretty badly, one of the chief possible methods being starting a regional nuclear arms race. Nobody was worried about the Iranian Navy blockading New York. Ah, so the reason is something that has no reason to happen, as well as none of america's business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Ah, so none of america's business, then. Nuclear proliferation is everyone's business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Swan Curry posted:asiatic empire indeed
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
The problem is that america thinks that everything is it's business. It believes that it is the ruling country of the world, and that all the other countries have to toe it's line. When those countries don't, america cooks up a way to solve the problem. It used to be coups but now you seem to prefer endless military occupations? Anyway, we would like you to stop that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Something I've been wondering about that I figure america apologists itt can answer: Well to be clear, the types of Republicans who hype up Iran as an existential threat and talk incessantly about nuclear weapons and poo poo like that are deranged. But their reasoning is based on two things. The first is that Iranian hardliners are extremely hostile to the West and anything along the lines of modernization that play into a decreased role for religion in government. They are clerics, and if you weaken the role of religion in Iran, you weaken the role of the clerical establishment, which obviously isn't something they want to see. So anything that they perceive as Western, they get pissed off about. This leads to them leading major anti-American protests and saying really hostile things like "great satan" and all that jazz. There's also a very strong isolationist bent to their rhetoric. For instance, it's controversial for an Iranian politician to suggest that dialogue is the way forward, not bombs. You have to disclaimer anything like that, by saying we need the bombs. We need to have all this military strength and we need to be prepared to fight Israel and fight the West and whatever else to protect the revolution. That hostility, which is reciprocated by a lot of Republicans, leads to that tense atmosphere where they are our enemies and we are theirs. We don't have a relationship like that with Canada. The second is that Iran hates Israel and some Iranian officials do all sorts of obnoxious hates Israel things like deny the holocaust and make cartoons about it and things like that. Republicans think Israel is their little buddy, so they get very pissy about this sort of thing. You also have conservatives in power in Israel who drum up Iran as an existential threat to them, and conservative Americans accept that interpretation, and in their minds, they can't allow that. So the end result for them is maybe not so much fear, but certainly that Iran is a major problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:What I'd be interested to know is how you figure those ideas apparently died in 1916, what with them being put into practice and massively improving the vulnerable's lot for most of the following century. Which is why eastern europeans and Chinese people can all read and all live in buildings with running water and heating now. Apparently there's more than one way of doing things in this world, and some of these ways do not involve literally killing millions of people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:The problem is that america thinks that everything is it's business. It believes that it is the ruling country of the world, and that all the other countries have to toe it's line. When those countries don't, america cooks up a way to solve the problem. It used to be coups but now you seem to prefer endless military occupations? Anyway, we would like you to stop that. Where is the US occupying militarily? Obama refused to intervene in Syria This whole post is the worst case of projection I think I've ever seen
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Apparently there's more than one way of doing things in this world, and some of these ways do not involve literally killing millions of people. So when will america stop killing millions of people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:So when will america stop killing millions of people? Tell me more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
^ Well to start with, to found america itself you had to perform a genocide. Then there's all of the fascist governments you've assisted, and the deliberate perpetuation of a world economic system which causes people to die of poverty en masse, and then there is the fact america murders dissidents. And then there's all of the wars of aggression you've done, which even if you include only the ones after 1945 all have a sky high death toll.icantfindaname posted:Where is the US occupying militarily? Obama refused to intervene in Syria You are still in Iraq. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:You are still in Iraq. Hmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:^ Well to start with, to found america itself you had to perform a genocide. Then there's all of the fascist governments you've assisted, and the deliberate perpetuation of a world economic system which causes people to die of poverty en masse, and then there is the fact america murders dissidents. Yeah I too think that the US should completely stop supporting the reasonably sane Iraqi government and let the people that execute their political opponents live overwhelm them. So you're saying millions of people have died throughout American history and that means America is still murdering millions of people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Iran isn't a direct threat to the US but they can gently caress up the middle east pretty badly, one of the chief possible methods being starting a regional nuclear arms race. Nobody was worried about the Iranian Navy blockading New York. That would be because the only time the Iranian Navy tried to blockade anything, the USN kicked seven shades of poo poo out of them 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 02:04
|
|