DANGEROUS ESCALATION BY THE USA
The dispatch of US naval ships and war planes to aid Georgia, and the deployment of American ground troops for what George Bush describes as a “vigorous and ongoing” humanitarian mission is a very dangerous escalation.
There is no clear evidence that the USA were behind Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia that started the war, (although plenty of circumstantial support for the idea) but the USA were made to look impotent by the speed and decisiveness of the Russian military response, that left the American ally of Georgian floundering.
This was a personal humiliation for George Bush, who had made a public speech in 2005 from the centre of Tbilisi before a crowd tens of thousands pledging to “stand with” the people of Georgia. More significantly, US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice has visited Tbilisi only last month calling on Russian peace keeping forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be replaced by an international force, that would fit Georgia’s assimilationist agenda.
It should not be forgotten that Rice is not only the ministerial office holder at the State Department, but is the USA’s top expert on the former USSR and its successor states. She is absolutely central to the USA’s strategy for dealing with the region, and she has clearly spelled out that the USA expects to dictate to Russia what happens there. The USA will not accept being humiliated in Georgia, which would starkly show to the whole world the limits of American power, and the end of the dream of a new American century. She said earlier today: “This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbour, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it … Things have changed”.
President Bush’s speech this evening shows that the White House thinks that direct confrontation with Russia will force the Kremlin to back down. Speaking on BBC’s Newsnight tonight an American spokesperson described Russia as a country with “no clout”, and as “Saudi Arabia with trees”
The USA seem to be gambling that fear of military confrontation with the USA, combined with economic and diplomatic pressure, will force the Russians to back down.
It seems highly unlikely that either the Russians or the USA will deliberately start armed hostilities with each other, but having both armies share the same soil is a very destabilising and volatile situation, and the USA has snubbed the European Union’s peace deal.
But where the Americans have most misunderstood the situation is in overestimating the degree of diplomatic and economic isolation they can impose upon the Russians.
As George Bush said today: “In recent years, Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century. The United States has supported those efforts. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions.”
There is no question that – for example - Germany would prefer to maintain economic relations with Russia, whatever Washington wills. Germany and Russia are building a joint $5 billion pipeline to export gas from Russia to Germany that will be completed in 2012. Many European members of NATO were and are opposed to Georgian membership.
But will Russia be isolated? The Americans are threatening to have Russia expelled from the WTO and G8. But this may be a serious overestimation of the American’s own influence over these bodies.
What the Americans seem unable to detect is that the wind is changing, and starting to blow from the East.
Is this is the end of the thesis of global ‘Empire’ - the era of global neoliberalism and its institutions such as the WTO and G8? The WTO was already collapsing. Is this now back to the older pattern of rival imperialist power blocks?
Clearly a dangerous turn of events - which requires international protests - Time to dust of those neither Washington nor Moscow placards!
The US and French Govts seem to be close on this. What is the UK governments position? Maybe the UK govt is now too f*cked after years of hostile public reaction and protests against the Iraq catastrophe? Hope so.
Also its stunning how the rhetoric of the west is now in an exact reverse mirror image of what it was during the Serbian / Kosovan situation:
Then Serbia sent its troops into a province which wanted secession - forcing people to flee over the mountains - and NATO intervened to break up Serbian ‘territorial integrity’.
Now Georgia sends its troops into a a province which wants secession - forcing people to flee over the mountains - and the west bangs on about defending Georgia’s ‘territorial integrity’! Duh?
Comment by Larry R — 14 August, 2008 @ 2:11 am
There’s no way the US is going to move troops and ships into the region any time soon. They have a far worse threat up their sleeves: a hasty visit by Condoleeza Rice.
Today she warned the Russian govt. that, “this isn’t 1968″. Which, I’m sure, had Putin shivering in his boots.
McCain followed up with, “…in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
Priceless.
Gates, the US Defence Secretary, has no plans to rearrange his vacation starting at the end of the week (ending somewhere near Labor Day)… and Bush is set to go down to the Crawford ranch for a much needed rest on Friday.
The Georgian apparachniki can therefore look forward to the same, “unwavering support” that residents of New Orleans received in the wake of hurrican Katrina.
Meanwhile, one of the largest battle fleets ever assembled (post 1991) is steaming into the Gulf. War games between British, French and the US have been ongoing throughout the summer in the Atlantic, and Kuwait’s military is on ‘war-alert’ (so no doubts about plans and conscious intent here).
The Ark Royal is rumoured to be part of the ‘package’ along with French nuclear submarines.
The Bush administration is clueless on the Russian issue, on attacking Iran however, I’m convinced that it’s a closely detailed plan, simply waiting for the, “risk analysis” to come in with positive numbers.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 14 August, 2008 @ 4:40 am
And a Russian invasion of a sovereign state wasn’t already a dangerous escalation? I wonder where the mass demonstrations of the “Stop the War” movement are this time? Support for anyone but the USA is a running joke almost as old as the Scottish anyone but England amongst the left.
Comment by Dave H — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:13 am
Larry #1
You keep those ‘neither washington or moscow’ placards. The blame for this crisis lies at the door of Washington and the reach for global hegemony by US imperialism after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russians are merely resisting encirclement by a ring of US military bases, a missile shield and Nato. Their response, seen in that context, is inevitable and to be welcomed. The US has trampled over sovereign nations, subverted democracy, and created an empire of which the Romans would have been proud. To attempt to portray what’s happening as a rerun of the Cold War is wholly inaccurate.
I agree with the thrust of Andy’s piece. The US has been humiliated by Russian military assertiveness in what they now view as their backyard, and the decision to send in US military ‘humanitarian’ aid constitutes a dangerous escalation. At stake is far more than prestige. At stake are the vast oil and gas deposits of the Caspian Sea.
Thus far the news coverage of this crisis has been anti-Russian in the extreme. In line with that, South Ossetian separatists are now being demonised in the same way the Serbs were preparatory to the break-up of Yugoslavia. Not once have I seen or heard anything about whether or not the location of so many US military bases close to Russia constitutes a threat to global security. I wonder what the reaction would be if Russia had military bases on the border with Mexico, if they had a battle fleet stationed off the coast of California, troops in Canada, etc?
It’s for these reasons that any demos that take place around this issue should focus their ire on US imperialism.
Comment by John W — 14 August, 2008 @ 7:40 am
An excellent article by Andy. I also think that John W is absolutely correct here, and neatly sums up the argument for focusing our attention on US imperial ambitions. This is all the more important for the fact that we in the UK are heavily implicated in US actions and global policy. If we were living inside Russia our priorities as socialists would obviously be different. But here in the UK we have to direct our fire against our own boss class and their support for the Bush administration’s military adventures.
Comment by brizblogger — 14 August, 2008 @ 8:33 am
“And a Russian invasion of a sovereign state wasn’t already a dangerous escalation?”
There is no ‘Russian invasion’. At most, there is a temporary incursion into Georgia proper as part of an armed conflict over South Ossetia, most of whose population does not consider itself Georgian. There was, however, an invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia, trying to annex that autonomous entity against the will of its population.
It is correct to defend South Ossetia’s right to self-determination just as it was correct to defend Kosova’s right to self-determination. In fact, the constitutional and democratic position of South Ossetia (and Abkhazia) are well nigh identical. While multinational, federal states may be preferable, all such incorporation must be voluntary, and all forms of coercion of this type should be rigorously opposed. Russia is not trying to coerce Georgia into Russia, Georgia is however trying to coerce two autonomous regions into Georgia, which is thoroughly anti-democratic.
And the US should get the hell out of the Caucusus.
Comment by ID — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:49 am
BPS: “The Ark Royal is rumoured to be part of the ‘package’ along with French nuclear submarines.”
If it is, then there is not going to be any action anytime soon, HMS Ark Royal pulled into Portsmouth this morning and all crew are going on extended shore leave.
Don’t underestimate prestige, it is the prestige and reputataion of the American military that has lined up allies for it in the region.
Their inability to protect the Georgian government will be closely read by the governments of the Central Asian republics, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation looks an increasingly credible alternative.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Good article on the BBC about the USA’s options:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7559855.stm
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Their [Russia’s] response, seen in that context, is inevitable and to be welcomed.
My god, do you really believe this stuff? The killing of huge numbers of Georgians, the continuation of hostilities is to be welcomed?
Yes, this was cooked up between Washington and Tblisi. Yes, the americans getting a bloody nose is a good thing. But not for a second should we be cheerleading for Putin and the other butchers. We need to be clear that in a clash between imperialist states we do not support either. Russia advancing into Georgia, and the horror of American troops being moved there, we do not support either.
Finally, Stop the War demonstrations and petitions should demand that our government cease its support for the Georgian state, and for the US sending troops to Georgia nd rearming it. We should be calling for a cessation of violence on all sides. By cheerleading for Putin, you stoke things up and make them worse, not better.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 14 August, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Firstly, I think this is a good post by Andy because it goes into detail about who benefits/gains from this conflict. And also what is europe’s role in this conflict. It was France and Germany who kept Georgia out of Nato much to Bush’s chagrin.
Jill Custard: “By cheerleading for Putin, you stoke things up and make them worse, not better”.
Nothing about this post leads me to believe there is cheerleading goin’ on. It is hard to imagine what Russia was supposed to do over the weekend?
The right-wing press in Britain seem to suggest some sort of less robust response. Funny how they get all peacenik when it is another powerful country using force! If Russia had dithered the likelihood is that there Georgian government would have moved more aggressively and more bloodshed would have resulted.
And certainly, my own position is not about cheerleading for the former Red Army or some misplaced romanticism for the country that was once the Soviet Union (from gangster capitalism of the 90s to oligarchical capitalism now).
Comment by Louise — 14 August, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Nothing about this post leads me to believe there is cheerleading goin’ on. It is hard to imagine what Russia was supposed to do over the weekend?
I’m not criticising the post, which I broadly agree with, I’m criticising the nonsense coming out of John W, who claims we should welcome the actions of Putin and Medvedev.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 14 August, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Thanks Louise
Jill St Custard.
It is worth you looking on the BBC website at the pictures of the destruction of Tskhinvali
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7559270.stm
Incidently, the pictures of destroyed tanks are the casualties of the unprovoked surprise attack by the Georgians
on the Russian peace-keeping force
The BBC also had a film up till yesterday that showed almost total destruction of residential areas by Georgis’a murderous onslaught last week. But they have taken this down (leaving up the film of knocked over dustbins and broken windows in Gori, that is virtually undamaged, although the BBC talk it up)
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 11:27 am
I think we have to be careful on the question of ethnic violence. Quite frankly I would be very surprised if militia’s on both sides were not now engaged in pretty dreadful stuff (in the letter from the British diplomat who seems to have gone AWOL he points out that minorities exist within Georgia proper and that nobody is considering what might be happening to them). We do not want to engaged in tit-for-tat justifications of that kind of violence. The reality is though that the action taken by Georgia represented an attempt to ‘resolve’ longstanding tensions through the use of military force. And there is no doubt that the resulting carnage in Southern Osstetia has been grossly underplayed in our media, and that the talk of the ‘territorial integrity of Georgia’ conceals, as the British diplomat noted in his letter, the right of the Georgian state to carry out punative attacks on civilian populations who do not wish to be part of that State. This does not mean however that we should treat the propaganda coming from Russia with any great reverence which is quite happy to link ethnicity to geo-politics and has a long history of doing so.
The real point is that this conflict is being portrayed as simply an ethnic conflict in which Russia has become improperly involved. It is not. It is a geo-political conflict between great powers and people are dying in Georgia because of that geo-political conflict and its our responsibility to get our own rulers out. And that Bush and co have just upped the anti, in a move which, at best, will produce more suffering for the people of the region and, at worst, something unimaginable. Georgia it should be remembered is not in the North Atlantic. It is on the Black Sea.
As I put it on the Tomb:
Its interesting that on Sky news there was reference to open discussions in Washington about how Georgia could have taken the action it did, either without consulting Washington, or on the other hand, after consulting Washington. As the reporter suggested such discussions conclude by suggesting that both scenario’s raise serious questions about the relationship between Washinton and Tiblisi, and these questions lie behind the unease in certain elite circles of US politics about the current situation.
But the dangerous dynamic persists, accentuated by what I would interpret as a desperate attempt to marginalise the French and the Germans in the resolution of the conflict (the speech was almost timed to scupper that particular deal). If in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq we were witnessed to such grotesque disparities of power that you really could chart US actions simply by reading off the intentions of the White House, in this deeply dangerous situation, with a variety of players, there remains every danger of the crisis spinning out of the control of even the major players.
This is in fact not an anomoly. Its how Lenin (the real one!) refuted Second International Marxists who believed that because war between the great powers of the day (and there were indeed serious disparities between them) would be ‘irrational’ from the standpoint of each of the actors it could not happen. The combination of economic and geo-political competition that we call the global system of imperialism, means that irrational happenings are far from unlikely.
Its one good reason to be a Socialist. The persistance of such a system means that such unimaginable catastrophes are always possible, even if none of the players want to see it happen.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 11:45 am
JOhn
The destruction of Tskhinvali was not carried out by “militias” as you put it.
it was carried out by the regular georgian army - and it is hard to see how it could have done so without the prior knowledge of its embedded US advisors.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Thanks for patronising me Andy. At no stage did I claim the aggression from Georgia was anything other than disgusting and unprovoked. But I find the idea that we should cheerlead for Putin, as John W does, and as Galloway has to an even more nauseating extent, both reactionary and deeply misguided.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 14 August, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
yes, yes, but I was talking about whats going on at the moment. The reason why it is impossible for any anti-war movement to treat Russia as some sort of an ally are brought out by this statement (quoted by a commentator on the tomb):
“We understand that this current Georgian leadership is a special project of the United States, but one day the United States will have to choose between defending its prestige over a virtual project or real partnership which requires joint action,”
In other words Russia is part of global imperialism its simply drawing lines in the sand (possibly literally in terms of co-operation in some arenas). Our first duty is to oppose NATO. But we should understand that the Russian state are not our allies, and its not our business to justify their actions. It IS our business to expose the lies of our own side about those actions, but we are not in the business of re-negotiating Russia’s relationship with global imperialism (which is the agenda of the Kremlin).
The Russian state is quite capable of utilizing ethnic hatreds to pursue its geo-politics, its just the case that in this situation, its the Georgians who were responsible for detonating the crisis, quite possibly with US collaberation, and our media is ignoring this. It doesn’t mean that we justify what may or may not be happening to Georgians now, either inside or just outside of South Ostettia. This would be foolish.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
It looks like the Russians are beginning to realise that annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia is not going to be enough as a rump Georgia will continue to seek membership of NATO. It is likely that Georgia will be demolished like Chechnya and the US will have done to the Georgians what they did to the marsh arabs in Iraq.
Russia is once again the weakest link in the imperialist chain. They must be defeated in Georgia by the independent action of the working class. Sackashvillie must be overthrown and a people’s army built. Peace talks conceding the disputed territories and assurances of non-alignment must be made to undermine the Russian offensive politically.
If Georgia becomes the site of a direct confrontation between US and Russian imperialism then we must take the opinion that a defeat for both sides is the best option and that the main enemy for Russian and US workers is at home. In the meantime it is right for marxists to defend Georgian self-determination despite the callous adventurism of its current leadership otherwise they will continue to turn to NATO for protection (which will never come)instead of to the Russian working class who should be concentrating on overthrowing the oligarchs and not being distracted by Putin’s imperial ambitions.
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
But JOhn,
I will elaborate on this more over the next few days, the USA is not symetrical with the other emerging powers like Russia, China and India.
The USA seeks to impose upon the whole world its own institutions and ideology, and specifically it seeks to export - by both economic and military power - the neo-liberal policy of deregulation and privatisation - whereas Russia and China have a model of a walled world where there is commerce between the constituent parts but each part can have its own different internal arrangements.
This is why China cooperates with brutal dictatorships, like Burma or Sudan, but also why China cooperates with more progressive governments like Venezuela, Vietnam and Cuba.
Whatever the demerits of the Chinese and Russian governmets, the multi-polar model that doesn’t require a shared set of international institutions based upon Heyekian concepts of liberty, and Chicago school economics is a much more fruitful one for the development of socialism in the Twenty First century.
In this sense, the defeat of the USA is better, not only because they are allied to our own rulers, but becasue the uni-polar American world order is an obstacle to progress through its ideologicall promotion of individualism, and its economic and diplomatic undermining of any models of state intervention or public ownership. You don’t need to have any illusions in Hu yintao, and even less in Putin, to believe that the challenge to global US hegemny from Moscow and Beijing opens a more fruitful international context for the development of the left.
Look at the question from the perspective of Caracas, Le Paz or Havana, or for that matter Ramallah and Tehran. The defeat for the Empire is a good thing.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Speaking on BBC’s Newsnight tonight an American spokesperson described Russia as a country with “no clout”, and as “Saudi Arabia with trees”
For those interested, the spokesperson on Newsnight was “The former US Ambassador to NATO, Robert Hunter, who is now a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation”; a bit more context:
“Russia doesn’t have the big clout. It’s got a lot of oil and gas - uh, they don’t have a lot more…”
“Russia is really - just with its oil and gas - it’s Saudi Arabia with trees. This is not a great power - it’s just pretending to be one.”
Comment by James Lapping — 14 August, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Thanks james
I missed exactly who was speaking, and when i wrote this article the BBC hadn’t put yesterday’s newsnight up on the web.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Yes I saw that on newsnight as well. I thought it was empty rhetoric combined with a bit of infighting amongst the US elite.
Andy of course these are not symmetrical powers. But Russia is not opposed to US imperialism for goodness sake. What on earth gave you that idea? Its like believing that India gaining an independent nuclear deterrent makes it a champion of the oppressed or an opponent of imperialism. Its just completely wrong headed.
Russia see’s the US as a partner. It believes the world should be divided up amongst the most powerful players. She simply has a disagreements with the US about their respective statures within the arrangement.
Carracas stays at the bottom.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
You don’t need to have any illusions in Hu Jintao, and even less in Putin, to believe that the challenge to global US hegemony from Moscow and Beijing opens a more fruitful international context for the development of the left. Well, this is true at one level, in the same way that the (on-going) challenge to US global hegemony from ‘old Europe’ also helps the development of the left.
The difference is, of course, that no-one is going to have illusions in Sarkozy, Merkel or Berlusconi representing a ‘nicer’ or ‘less oppressive’ imperialism, whereas too many people on the left still do have illusions in China and Russia.
The key differnece isn’t really about spreading ideologies and structures - the USA is perfectly happy to prop up dictatorships when it’s in their interests to do so (Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan until Karimov decided to switch, Musharraf in Pakistan….) The key difference is that the US’ imperialist ambitions are global, and Russia and China’s are local. Both ruling classes are happy to accept the dominant structures of the world economy, where the US provides the global currency and global muscle, and just want to carve out larger spheres of influence for themselves. Although this leads them into conflict with the US, it’s not an anti-imperialist conflict, but rather an inter-imperialist one.
Comment by chjh — 14 August, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
And I’m all for a defeat for NATO and US Empire. And politically the left here should do everything to bring such a thing about. But the idea that this means we side with Putin is ridiculous.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
They must be defeated in Georgia by the independent action of the working class. Sackashvillie must be overthrown and a people’s army built.
You’re an idiot.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 14 August, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
In these difficult times can we just all agree that prospects is an idiot?
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
chjh: “Although this leads them into conflict with the US, it’s not an anti-imperialist conflict, but rather an inter-imperialist one.”
Who suggested it was an anti-imperalist conflict? Certainly not me.
It seems that John and chjh having grasped one thing, - that there is rivalry between imperalisms - then on that basis decide that there is no difference between the dominant forms that that conflict can assume, and becasue all the various forms are capitalist, then we should be indifferent to which form it takes.
Obviously there was a difference between the word economy and structure on international trade in the pre-WW2 era for example, which was laregly comprosed of autarchic trading blocks, with the structure of the wrld economy that emerged after WW2.
From the point of view of the left it was much more desirable that the imperialist block of the USA and Britain, allied with the USSR, should prove victorious over fascism. The resulting structure of the world economy, based around American free trade dismantling of the different trading clocks favoured de-colonialisation, and so was better than the previous model. That did not make the USA anti-imperialist.
Having a preferred alternative model for the international structures and organisation of world trade is not “anti-imperialist”, nor is arguing that a change in such international structures could be beneficial for the revival of left politics the same as endorsing or supporting the forces bringing such change about. It simply is the case that both China and Russia - for different reasons - have material interests in seeking to modify the current Washington based consensus - cautiously and modestly, but challneging it nonetheless.
chjh: “The key difference is that the US’ imperialist ambitions are global, and Russia and China’s are local. Both ruling classes are happy to accept the dominant structures of the world economy, where the US provides the global currency and global muscle, and just want to carve out larger spheres of influence for themselves. ”
Yes, but carving out larger spheres of influence for themselves does change the nature of the dominant structures . The USA’s model simply doesn’t accept the increased role of other powers who have a different agenda.
And it simply is the case that China’s model of economic development in Africa - for example - is a more preferable model for developing nations, because it doesn’t link foreign trade or aid with deregulation and liberalisation.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
“This was a personal humiliation for George Bush, who had made a public speech in 2005 from the centre of Tbilisi before a crowd tens of thousands pledging to “stand with” the people of Georgia. ”
Um, so if the USA doesn’t militarily support Georgia, they’re “humiliated”. And if they do, they are warmongering neo-cons who are making johng run around the street in his y-fronts crying hysterically about the Bomb, like a teenager in the 80s who just saw “Threads”.
But of course, the sight of the likes of Galloway cheering on an invasion by a country of population 150m against a country of population 4m should put the last nail in the coffin of the idea that the term “anti-imperialist” has any objective meaning.
Comment by Dustin the Turkey — 14 August, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Johng and Custard
Please elaborate on my idiocy. I venture and independent working class solution and it sends you into apoplexy. You are the idiot. Do you seriously believe the pro-West Sackashville can extricate Georgia from the mess he has got it into?
By the way, China is a deformed workers’ state and an attack on it is probably the last thing that can unite the increasingly beligerent imperialisms. China needs a new internationalist leadership not a social revolution.
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Further: the Georgian army has virtually collapsed. It will either degenerate into racially based militias or be reorganised by NATO or rebuilt from the ground up by the working class to defend the towns and cities of Georgia from the Russian onslaught. Which do you pick Johng?
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
I pick a sensible and constructive approach to uniting the disparate positions that exist in Britain to opposing the wardrive of Bush and NATO. Not armchair generals producing programs for entirely imaginary social forces in Georgia or Russia. As is clear from the above, myself and Andy Newman have differences in how we charecterise the current situation. But that is an entirely different kind of disagreement which certainly does not preclude marching togeather against attempts to bounce the world into a new global conflict.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
China’s model for Africa? Andy your kidding (to return to a serious discussion). Who asked Africa?
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
`I pick a sensible and constructive approach to uniting the disparate positions that exist in Britain to opposing the wardrive of Bush and NATO.’
Not a marxist approach then? You are just an empiricist fool? There are hundreds of those in British universities teaching International Relations which you obviously value over marxism.
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
I like the idea that you think the Georgian and Russian working classes are entirely imaginary.
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
I am indeed an empiricist fool. Enough to know an utterly irrelevent sectarian when I see one.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
Oh and prospect: no-one is stopping you from leading the Georgian and Russian working class. Why not just get on with it? Altough it has to be said that they might wonder why, if your so smart, you have’nt got anything to say to your own working class.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
” …should put the last nail in the coffin of the idea that the term “anti-imperialist” has any objective meaning.
Comment by Dustin the Turkey
Blah, blah, blah… Why don’t you go dust the turkey!
Comment by Beaton the Bishop — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
I shall save that admission.
It is the duty of marxists to at least attempt a marxist analysis of any situation. Please tell me what was `sectarian’ about the approach I outlined in #17. Certainly your rejection of it in favour of unity for its own sake is opportunist.
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
Hey I’m happy with unity for its own sake prospects.
For what its worth your position was ludicrously soft on US imperialism, and as far as I could see, a load of mechanical rubbish. The arguments above however between a variety of people including myself, newman, chjs etc, were an attempt to work out what marxists ought to say about the situation. The fact that you didn’t notice this but simply came out with a load of ill-digested dogmatic piss meant that it was rather hard to take you seriously.
Are you per chance a member of the Sparticist League?
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
It is perfectly clear from what I have written above that I am opposed to NATO interference in Georgia and even called for the defeat of the US through working class opposition to its involvement so stop talking shit.
Are you a member of the league of empiricist english gentlemen?
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
“I am opposed to NATO interference in Georgia and even called for the defeat of the US through working class opposition to its involvement”
Hooray.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
`Hooray’
That was there from the start but it didn’t stop you accusing me of being an idiot.
So does that mean you are now ready to withdraw your accusation of idiocy or are you content to carry on debating in your usual rubbish style?
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
`Hey I’m happy with unity for its own sake prospects.’
That’s how Marxists become anti-Marxists. Unity is only worthwhile on the basis of an agreed objective not at the cost of diluting a scientific analysis (or at least an attempt at one)and didn’t you lot just split from Respect where unity isn’t predicated on complete agreement on everything? Wasn’t that really sectarian? You are sectarian in practise and an opportunist in theory when the idea is to try to be principled in both. Oh dear.
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Look Prospects I’m sure the toilers of Russia and Georgia are tremendously grateful for your advice, and indeed the scientific approach to the Respect split, but really, whats the purpose of your intervention?
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Clarity Johng, clarity. Whilst your interventions are always clouded in obscurantism.
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Jill:
I’m not criticising the post, which I broadly agree with, I’m criticising the nonsense coming out of John W, who claims we should welcome the actions of Putin and Medvedev.
Reply:
You’ve cherry picked a small section of what I wrote and thereby completed distorted it. The thrust of my post is that the immediate threat facing humanity is that posed by US imperialism. You think it would have been better if Russia was contained and Georgia able to attack its monorities with US support and complicity? Do you? Because if so then it you talking garbage. Russia’s response to US sponsored aggression is to be welcomed as a counterweight to US imperialism. Nobody has any illusions about the nature of the Russian State. But in the current period, the Russian State does not control the IMF and World Bank; the Russian State does not have over 700 military bases around the world; the Russian State does not have a military larger than the military of the next nine nations combined; and the Russian State has not decimated Iraq, Afghanistan, and does not fund ethnic cleansing and apartheid in Palestine.
It really is very simple.
Please,
Comment by John W — 14 August, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
Its a pity John’s never been to Grozny.
Comment by minority report — 14 August, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
#46
Moralism masquerading as materialism.
WTF has Grozny got to do with the current crisis in Georgia?
Does your post even have a point?
Comment by John W — 14 August, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
I’m sure your clarity is much appreciated prospect. It is a beacon when all else is darkness. In the meantime I would argue that it is absolutely correct to emphasis that the US remains the predominant global hegemon, in much the same way as Britain was in the first half of the 20th century. It is entirely understandable that many are pleased to see the US take a bloody nose, and no socialist mourns the unravelling of the circumstances which meant that for a decade there was the illusion of a unilateral world. Its also quite wrong to imagine that those powers like Russia, or indeed China, which have emerged as regional (as opposed to global) challengers represent in any sense a challenge to the system of global imperialism, or that these powers are in any sense allies of those who suffer because of imperialism. Russia in its recent pronouncements has warned the US that it is being distracted by peripheral regional matters at the cost of broader shared agendas of global management. China similarly, is in no sense counterhegmonic when it comes to the central issues of globalisation, and indeed, has championed the model of Special Economic Zones from Mexico to India. This does not mean that we should not recognise that the US is the main enemy in terms of global capitalism, or not exploit the opportunities that its crisis and weakness make possible. But we do not believe in the logic of my enemies enemy is my friend, whatever our right wing critics say, and nor do we support the suffering imposed on ordinary people by these rivalries, embedded in the workings of the global system, which could so easily drag the whole of humanity to disaster. Great power rivalries have never been wholly symmetrical, but they can easily be differentiated from the kind of policies pursued in the Middle East and Africa.
We cannot behave as if Russia and China are our allies in the struggle against Imperialism. For no other reason then that it is not true. Importantly in terms of the anti-war movement in Britain, I don’t really see that these are very important divisions. We agree who the main enemy is, and in terms of the kind of movement we have to build, thats the main thing.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
johng, i both agree and disagree with you. yes, both russia and china are explicitly NOT states we can support. but in terms of global imperialism, their ability to project power beyond their own borders, they are not global players. the cause of the crisis and conflict in georgia is US global hegemony, which is where our focus needs to be, especially considering our own ruling class’s role as a US regional gendarme. in no way should we carry placards supporting russia, but that is entirely different from understanding the advantage in the ability of the US to project its power and hegemony power being curtailed. re your point on people, both georgian and south ossetian, suffering as a result of this conflict, yes, you are right, but again the cause of their suffering is the determination by the US to encircle Russia with military bases, a missile shield, and a belligerent military alliance in the form of NATO.
Comment by John W — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
What a pile of Gramscian Stalinist, positivist International Relations theory clap trap.
Don’t you think the Georgian and Russian working classes are worthy of a Marxist analysis? We are internationalists or we are nothing. The AWL have recently put their organisation in the service of Zionism and you want to put yours in the service of Russian imperialism. You will build no anti-war movement in the West if you rationalise the destruction of Georgia by the Russian military. It seems to me that marxist scientific terminology in your hands is meaningless.
I would like to hear your explanation of why China is imperialist at some point but let’s not get off topic in this thread.
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Was referring to #48 there.
Comment by Prospects — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Well I think I’ve made it clear that our central focus has to be on NATO and US Imperialism. So, in practical terms, our differences are not so great (at least in Britain, and, Prospects sterling international commentry notwithstanding, thats where our activity will be significant). But I also don’t hold to the view that, for example, Russian crimes in Chechnya can be understood in the kinds of terms you lay out. And as the crisis deepens, we may well see discontent in Russia and in other regional states taking many different forms. Its also true that we are very likely to see tensions between the US and Europe about the correct approach to Russia. Does this mean I will become a fan of European capitalism? No. Will I welcome the growing incoherence of global imperialism: Yes. In any case I don’t think these disagreements are hugely important at present. My worry is that, if peoples opposition our own ruling class hangs on the belief that Russia is some kind of an anti-imperialist bastion, they may end up being a little disillusioned, and whats more to the point, find themselves confused and disarmed.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
“Gramscian Stalinist, positivist International Relations theory clap trap”
Thats one heck of a beast there.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
I’m not sure that Russia and China do not project their power beyond their borders incidently.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
I never said they do not, but their ability to do so compared to that of the US is curently marginal in the extreme. Also, Russian and Chinese capitalism has developed in direct response to US imperialism. I believe this is inarguable. As such, they both still exist at the pleasure of the dollar.
Comment by John W — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
“It should not be forgotten that Rice is not only the ministerial office holder at the State Department, but is the USA’s top expert on the former USSR and its successor states”.
So Andy Newman thinks it’s very sinister that the US has a Secretary of State who knows something about Russia - in other words that the Secretary of State is actually qualified to do her job. Do you think the world would be a safer place if some semi-illiterate who’d never heard of South Ossetia before last week were to replace Rice?
As for the claim that the US is escalating the crisis, this is a wonderful example of standing reality on its head. When western journalists today (Thursday) wandered through the battered Georgian town of Gori, it wasn’t American troops they bumped into.
Despite the ceasefire brokered by Sarkozy, the Russians were still there, showing no signs of withdrawing and were accompanied by gangs of Ossetian militiamen (that’s the polite term - but since they were looting, “bandits” is probably a more accurate description).
When British Stalinists defended the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, at least they did so in the mistaken belief that they were defending socialism. You, however, in defending the onslaght against Georgia, are merely offering your services to the traditional imperialist power in the Caucasus.
Comment by paul fauvet — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
I found this article very useful
http://marxsite.com/Caucuses-Confrontation.html
Comment by Louise — 14 August, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
And they are very enthusiastic about the doller.
Paul, a couple of questions. Do you believe that the US knew anything about the Georgian plan to escalate conflict in South Ostettia? Do you not think this is a rather important question? Do you not think that Condeleeza Rice is a sinister figure in world politics? Do you recognise that the US has geo-political ambitions in the region? Do you think the US is in any position to lecture other countries about ‘disproportionate reactions’? What would your critique be of the US record in the region (if any).
I await your reply with interest.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 8:12 am
Answering your questions, Johg, of course it is hypocritical of the US government, given its own record, to lecture anybody else about “disproportionate reactions”.
But one crime does not justify another. Just because we opposed the US invasion of Iraq does not give anyone on the left a good reason for supporting, even tacitly, the Russian aggression against Georgia.
Has the US got geo-political ambitions in the region? Almost certainly - but this is irrelevant to the main issue here, which is the behaviour of the other major imperialist power. By your near exclusive concetration on the US, you are letting the Russian rulers off the hook.
Did the US have advance knowledge of the Georgian operation against the Ossetian militias? I have no idea, and neither do you. The immediate start of this conflict was the skirmishes that began on 1 August. Did the Russian government give the green light to the Ossetian militias to harass villages full of ethnic Georgians? Again, I´m not sure, and again I don´t suppose you are either. I think local actors are quite capable of taking their own initiatives, and are not merely pulled by strings operated in Washington or Moscow.
As for Condoleeza Rice, I am amused that you regard an intelligent women in a Republican administration as more threatening than her intellectually challenged male boss.
I don´t see why Rice should be regarded as more sinister than anybody else in the US administration - less so, since she actually knows what she´s talking about, and is thus less likely to do anything terminally stupid.
Comment by paul fauvet — 15 August, 2008 @ 8:42 am
I very much enjoyed your attempt to defend condoleeza rice on feminist grounds. Am I supposed to take this seriously? This about a person who described the bombing of Lebanon as the ‘birth pangs of a new middle east’. This about a person whose very appearence on a platform with Bush causes fear and horror about the future to any decent person. I can only hope she never visits your part of the world, for your own sake. I never suggested that she was ‘worst’ then the other war criminals and psychopaths in the White House incidently, I was merely responding to your peculiar attempt to pass off her aggressive and threatening performance as simple professionalism.
Secondly I have nowhere, tacitly or otherwise, supported Russian actions in Georgia. You simply seem to believe that anyone who criticises the US is somehow supporting Putin. This says more about your own politics then it does anyone elses.
Thirdly the comparison between what may or may not be happening with Osttetian irregulars and the Georgian population behind the Russian lines (for which I would indeed hold Russia partly although by no means wholly responsible) and what the Georgian regime did in Ostettia will not hold, and shame on you for continuing to obfuscate this matter. The bombardment of the capital city and villages, the deaths of thousands of civilians, and the tens of thousands of refugee’s fleeing to Russia (which our media and apologists like yourself have had almost nothing to say about) was carried out not by irregulars with an uncertain chain of command, but by a professional army, trained and equipped by the US, under the direct orders of the Georgian government, itself a very close ally of the US.
Your complete lack of interest in this, and constant attempts to ignore it, again, gives the lie to any claim you might want to make about being centrally concerned with human rights as opposed to geo-politics. It is little short of astonishing that we still have no explanation for the behaviour of the Georgian government in this matter, as opposed to absurd attempts to argue that the activities of seperatists justified such a bestial assault on a civilian population by the national army of Georgia.
Russia of course has taken full advantage of this, and I have absolutely no doubt is as concerned with geo-politics as the US is. But, as with the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, this does not mean that the initial intervention might not have saved many lives, whatever the future holds. It is absolutely possible that irregualars from Osstetia are now terrorising Georgian civilians, just as the Georgian army terrorised Ossetian civilians last week. As things stand at the moment, in terms of scale and casualties these things do not seem comparable. That could of course change.
But there will be no resolution for ordinary people on both sides of this conflict so long as the west continues to close its eyes to what happened last week, and continues to stoke the tensions for temporary geo-political advantage. Those georgians who have been forced to flee, like those Ostettians who have been forced to flee, should be allowed back and arrangements made to ensure their security. But the idea that the Georgian army should be allowed back in after what they have just done, without anyone acknowledging what they have just done is absurd.
And whilst the Russians are clearly using the argument about Kosova for their own purposes (suggesting last night that as Serbia has been punished for military action against minorities to preserve its ‘territorial integrity’, no one should object to the same treatment being meted out to Georgia) it cannot but strike any observer the astonishing parrallel between the behaviour of NATO in Kosova and the behaviour of the Russians in Ostettia (Serbia was of course bombed from the air including its capital city, so in those terms Georgia has got off rather lightly).
You are quite right that two wrongs do not make a right obviously (although your interpretations of ‘wrongs’ is somewhat narrow and interested). I do not support the Russian punishment of Georgia, a punishment which cannot but fall on the civilian population. However you supported and support this being done to other countries. Perhaps your support for these principles are what has led countries like Russia to behave as they have. After all these are the rules of the game laid down by those who favour coalitions of the willing to enforce a global human rights regime.
No point in whinning about it now.
Those of us who did not support such things have more of a leg to stand on in protesting these things.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 9:20 am
God you are a fool. Despite all the cod-moralism you still come off incredibly callous. What are the chances of a Marxist analysis from the SWP at any time? None I suspect. On Lenin’s Tomb they rely on Paul Krugman for their analysis which seems more concerned with saving Globalization, Western gas supplies and the Kuomintang than anything else. Over there it’s Russian imperialism this and Russian imperialism that but from a Western imperialist perspective. Here it’s Western imperialism that and Western imperialism this but from a Russian imperialist perspective. The SWP want to have their cake and eat it. How nice to never actually be wrong. You are indeed infallible from a `realist’ perspective. From a Marxist perspective you’re not even in the game.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 9:51 am
How exactly can my analyses be described as either ‘realist’ or on the other hand supportive of russia prospect? Its bizarre. Whats noticable is that you fail to say anything critical about a defender of Condeleeza Rice (who actually really is a ‘realist’), and more puzzlingly, fail to say anything about those here who really are espousing the position you falsely accuse me of. I get the impression that your one of these people who spend too much time on Harry’s Place and enjoy re-cycling nasty inneuendo’s about socialists from that far right site, but in your spare time enjoy pretending to be left wing. Hence your obsession with attacking me, when actually, I don’t hold the position you are trying to attack. Wierd. I’m sure David T is applauding your heroism, and no doubt a few of his acolytes who get such a warm reception on shiraz socialist will clap you on the back.
Takes all sorts I suppose. Duck and cover, duck and cover, duck and cover.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 10:41 am
I think Paul was trying to make a subtle point about Rice involving the hyperbole of those who are soft on Russian imperialism but you of course won’t take it in the spirit it was intended. He made it clear he is as opposed as anyone else to US imperialist intervention in the Caucuses though obviously I don’t want to put words into his mouth I’m merely going by what I read.
As for the Harry’s Place clap trap. Save it and deal with the arguements. You called me an idiot for proposing an independent working class perspective and way forward and claimed I was pro-Western imperialism so don’t even go near the misrepresentation arguement. As for Duck and Cover we’ll leave that to the AWL shall we?
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Oh god your a liberal bomber. quite obviously. ‘independent working class perspective’ my arse.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 11:41 am
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iaHR8v4yMeLwq8hWuC1tk6urm8lQD92IKCNG0
Cluster bombs used
Comment by cluster — 15 August, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Prospect the funny thing is that you are obviously completely incapable of dealing with any arguments at all. You make a set of baseless accusations, drawn from right wing websites, and then claim to be making a Marxist argument. Whats Marxist about it exactly?
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 11:55 am
I have deleted a comment from Prospects that decsended into being too abusive even by my permissive standards.
Perhaps John and prospects might both want to step back and consider whether an exchange of insults is helping this debate?
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 11:56 am
It is most likely that Russia will do a Chechnya on a rump Georgia.
Not just an idiot, but one with an absurd reading of the situation. The idea that Putin is going to reduce America’s key client state in the region to rubble is plain bonkers - that is the pretext that could push a far more serious inter-imperialist conflict.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
`The idea that Putin is going to reduce America’s key client state in the region to rubble is plain bonkers - that is the pretext that could push a far more serious inter-imperialist conflict’
Well at last you are starting to agree with me. You concur that Russia is engaged in an imperialist assault which is no more than I have been saying all along. Therefore, as a Marxist you will presumably be opposing this assault and not just because it could lead to far more serious inter-imperialist conflict but because it may well result in the destruction of Tiblisi and other working class conurbations otherwise your concern is solely for the maintenance of the status quo which would indeed be pro-Western imperialism and your comfortable place in it.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
If you’d actually bothered to look, rather than chucking around absurd and sexist insults, you’d notice that myself and johng have been arguing all the way through that this is an inter-imperialist conflict. We will see more of this, the difference between american imperialism and chinese and russian imperialism being that the american variety at present is global, whereas for the chinese and russians it is regional.
As socialists, we support the defeat of imperialism. The difference is that unlike you, we don’t make absurd posturing our defining feature, we don’t demand that the force resisting imperialism meet ridiculous criteria for purity, we don’t make the absurd statement about only supporting a working class based resistance. Rather we recognise that any defeat for imperialism is a positive thing, as it fundamentally weakens the capitalist systems. So on this basis, the defeat of the american-backed attack by georgia is a good thing, but we have no truck with those people who claim the russians are in any way progressive (as is argued, for example by the morning star and by respect renewal’s leader).
Your position is nothing but idiotic nihilism.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
`As socialists, we support the defeat of imperialism. The difference is that unlike you, we don’t make absurd posturing our defining feature, we don’t demand that the force resisting imperialism meet ridiculous criteria for purity, we don’t make the absurd statement about only supporting a working class based resistance. Rather we recognise that any defeat for imperialism is a positive thing, as it fundamentally weakens the capitalist systems. So on this basis, the defeat of the american-backed attack by georgia is a good thing, but we have no truck with those people who claim the russians are in any way progressive (as is argued, for example by the morning star and by respect renewal’s leader).’
Mealy mouthed nonsense devoid of class analysis or any attempt at a route out for the working class. If this is an inter-imperialist conflict as you describe it, where do you stand on the Russian assault on Georgia today?
You say you have no truck with people who claim the russians are in any way progressive just after you’ve congratulated them for defeating imperialism. You are all over the place. I can only presume you support imperialist annexations as if the petty-bourgeois Georgian leaderships adventurist, absurd and vicious assault on the enclaves wasn’t the product of years of Russian provocations as well as their own frustration.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
`Your position is nothing but idiotic nihilism.’
You are the only joker in this pack Custard.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Ah prospects has just justified Georgia’s attack on the enclaves as the product of ‘years of provocations’ by the Russians and their own frustrations, so much for third campism. More pertinently reading through the bourgoise press there is talk of a superpower confrontation developing between Poland and Georgia. Why are you talking as if the only thing going on is a confrontation between Georgia and Russia? And again, what exactly is incoherent or ‘all over the place’ about our position? You do not explain yourself at all. Again, its rather fascinating that you concentrate all your fire on me and custard rather then those who have actually argued what you are claiming we argue. Why is that? See one reason I’ve been a bit short with you is that I suspect your actually just a right wing troll, rather then a left liberal troll. Your certainly following the MO of a number of unpleasent stalkers its been my misfortune to run into on the net.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
I can only presume you support imperialist annexations
Based on what? Your own straw man arguments and nothing else.
as if the petty-bourgeois Georgian leaderships adventurist, absurd and vicious assault on the enclaves wasn’t the product of years of Russian provocations as well as their own frustration.
Well it wasn’t - it was based on an American client state, the most important they have after Israel, thinking it had a green light to ethnically cleanse seccessionists. It’s part and parcel of an imperialist strategy to encircle Russia with Nato nations. Any even basic knowledge of the region indicates that Russia has been rather uninvolved with Georgian politics up until now, preferring to use its control of natural gas to increase its influence over central and western europe.
Incidentally, it’s perfectly possible to welcome the bruising of american plans to push Nato up to the borders of Russia, without supporting the actions of the Russian army in Georgia. Our priority in this country is to do as much damage as possible to our own government’s support for american imperialism (including the american project to expand Nato and encircle Russia). The job of the Russian working class is to damage their own government’s imperialist project. The job of Chinese workers is to revolt against their government’s imperialism. This is the abc of leninism, I’m surprised you find it so hard to get your head around. The main enemy is at home.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
And just to be absolutely clear, if Russia had unilaterally attacked Georgia, we would have opposed it.
Did Russia unilaterally attack Georgia? No.
Is Russian imperialism actively expanding its military footprint to confront the USA? No.
Is the USA actively expanding its military footprint to confront Russia? Yes.
Is this a good thing? No.
So if the USA’s attempt to expand its military footprint gets beaten off, is this therefore a good thing? Yes.
And for an expansion on what ‘Neither Washington nor Moscow’ means in practice, see this piece in Socialist Worker (links to other articles at the bottom) http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/art.php?id=15753
Comment by chjh — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
#73
JOhn
I know who Propect is, and he isn’t a right wing troll, he is a genuine leftie.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
chjh: a clear cut description of Russian imperialism as progressive which you then have the cheek to try to distance yourself from by having a go a the morning star et al for exactly the same thing.
Custard: is your dog imperialist too. It might as well be the way you play fast and loose with the concept. you and johng should just stick to American realism it’s what you are good at.
I was prepared to debate this issue sensibly but your opening gambit was that i am an idiot which you then followed up with liberal bomber and nihilist. I think most people would say my analysis is classical leninism, for some probably too classical. You are completely uncomradely and empiricist idiots. God help any members of your outfit who want to discuss the matter sensibly.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
#73 Thank you for that Andy.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Custard: is your dog imperialist too. It might as well be the way you play fast and loose with the concept. you and johng should just stick to American realism it’s what you are good at.
Once again, no attempt to actually engage with the arguments. You really are an idiot.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Well if he is a genuine leftie its a very peculiar position he’s got.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
And why he keeps accusing us of suggesting that Russian imperialism is progressive when we nowhere say any such thing I don’t really understand. We just don’t believe Russia is the biggest imperialism.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
that should be the biggest imperialist in the region. The US is the biggest imperialist in georgia. its practically a client state for goodness sake.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
#77
Prospects: “I think most people would say my analysis is classical leninism,”
Think again.
:o)
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
`Well if he is a genuine leftie its a very peculiar position he’s got.’
It’s peculiar to you Johng because you’ve forgotten what Marxism is. Although throughout the Cold War ironically you remained `neutral’ so perhaps you’ve never known what it is.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Custard: get lost idiot.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Although throughout the Cold War ironically you remained `neutral’ so perhaps you’ve never known what it is.
So presumably that means you were a cheerleader for an imperialist state during the cold war.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Presume again custard as that seems to be what you are best at. I certainly never characterised the SU as imperialist despite my criticisms of the bureaucracy. I prefered a class analysis.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Presume again custard as that seems to be what you are best at. I certainly never characterised the SU as imperialist despite my criticisms of the bureaucracy. I prefered a class analysis.
So, to recap, inside your tiny little mind:
- The workers were in control of the means of production under stalinism, and clearly wanted to use their labour to build mig fighter jets rather than anything that might be vaguely useful.
- The USSR never used its military to attack anyone. Not Hungary, not the Czech Republic, no-one.
You are an idiot.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
#82 “The US is the biggest imperialist in georgia.”
At last look the Russians seemed to have a lot more combat troops there. Or maybe the Yankees will spring from the “aid flights” like Greeks from a wooden horse.
Comment by skidmarx — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
`So, to recap, inside your tiny little mind:’
Clearly you don’t want a debate so I invite you to wallow in your own ignorance.
Comment by Prospects — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Clearly you don’t want a debate so I invite you to wallow in your own ignorance.
I’d rather wallow in my own crapulence.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Well Skidmarx its their region and the Georgian army had been built by them. Whilst no doubt they are running around screaming ‘who lost georgia?’ it has to be said that its a bit rich to treat them as external actors. The Russians didn’t run the government. The US did. Which raises rather interesting questions about recent events really. Very wierd business. But not to worry the US is putting rocket launch sites in Poland and threatening to isolate Russia. These things always put me in mind of all those who died to keep China British.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
American realism incidently, is essentially just the official ideology of post war US imperial management. The method is here rather close to the object. I don’t really understand though, what is supposed to be realist about my argument. Is it that I’m treating great powers as if they have strategic interests. Realism does assume this, but its not the case that to treat strategic interests as real makes you a realist. It just makes you sensible. I’d also add that Marxists should not argue by denouncing people for not being Marxists (whether or not this is true). Aside from anything else it doesn’t impress anyone who is not a Marxist. We should strive to demonstrate that our theories explain whats actually going on.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
You don’t explain anything Johng. You hailed the annexation of S Ossettia by the Russian army and the Russian militias as a wonderful victory over imperialism and by tea time the next day you are calling Russia imperialist again. You don’t know what you are on about and just add concepts to suit your pre-determined, thoroughly bourgeois understanding of reality.
The stop the war coalition needs to resolutely condemn Russia’s assault on Georgia and its annexationist policies as well as Western involvement otherwise it will rapidly lose all credibility in the public mind as the butchery unfolds. Western imperialism has proved to be a false friend to the Georgian people, the Western working class must be different. As for the Russian working class they need to oppose this onslaught of the oligarchs.
Comment by Prospects — 16 August, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
I’m sorry prospect but I nowhere ‘hailed’ the ‘annexation’ of these territories, and I nowhere suggested or even implied that Russia was not a major power. I think when people just start telling lies and are incapable of rebutting a single argument the time has come to close the discussion.
Comment by johng — 17 August, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
Cheers then idiot.
Comment by Prospects — 17 August, 2008 @ 7:28 pm