The elections are coming up soon, and it is time again for the right wing of the communist movement to brush off their copy of Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism an infantile disorder" and incorrectly quote it to the end of the earth to avoid having to support boycotts or any revolutionary action what so ever... again.
Why do they do this? What is there to gain from this tactic of participating in the system that keeps the people oppressed? It can't be because 'that's where the masses are' barely 40% vote in midterm elections and the last presidential election (the highest election turn out in the nations history) a little over 60% voted and look at the area's with the highest voter turn out. Its not hard to see that mainly the capitalist and upper bourgeoisie along with upper middle class are the voters. (I wonder why socialist do so bad in our elections)
They have this behavior simply because they are in a privileged position in the worlds order. They are not starving, they have clean running water, Probably had access to higher education. Most communist I hear spout this garbage of participating in the elections have had university educations and would be considered more intelligentsia than proletariat. I don't have running water where I live. Only one electric socket works where I live. I'm lucky enough to have a person nice enough to let me use their wireless internet. What I'm getting at is that people who constantly attack the left-wing (people like me) for wanting to boycott elections (the system that allows me to live in these situations) do so because they do not want to struggle. They have no need to struggle. They are fine with how their lives are under capitalism/imperialism.
I'm not saying that I am not happy that these right-wingers want communism eventually. I'm just saying it makes me upset when someone with an android Cellular phone and a 2009 model car tells me that I am a bad communist if I boycott the elections.
While I'm ranting about privilege of the US communist movement I'd like to bring up internationalism and imperialism. Using the elections as a way to 'further the goal of socialism' is a failed tactic that has been tried and true to failure for almost a century. But why are people that are claiming to be socialist/communist still supporting running in elections that only decide what face will be the new poster child for imperialism? The reason we need to boycott is to show international solidarity with our brothers and sister in the third world nations that are struggling in a way us in the US and other imperialist nations could never dream of. These people needs socialism and self determination so they can make an increase in their living standards and stamp out malnutrition and poverty as a whole. As long as the US and other nations can imperialistically dominate the third world and the communist in those nations participate in the system that does this exploiting we can not count ourselves as true internationalist.
Simply repeating slogans such as "free Palestine" "no war on (insert current nation we are planning on invading here)" "out of Afghanistan now" does not make you an internationalist. Action makes you what you are. Boycotting the system that causes most of the world to live in mega slums and slave like conditions, that is showing international solidarity brothers and sisters. Fuck participating in elections as an end goal. Or even a long term goal. People are starving and working for nothing and have nothing in most of the world. Those people need to know that the communist living in the belly of the beast are not counting on the system that is causing their misery to destroy the system that is causing their misery.
Showing posts with label US imperialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US imperialism. Show all posts
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Qaddafi and Libya: A Self-Criticism.
I am writing this post to do a self-criticism of sorts because as a Maoist I see it as most important to be able to point out when you are wrong or when you have made mistakes on an issue or when you have given a false analogy.
When this conflict started Libyan leader Qaddafi was no less guilty then the so called rebels of being imperialism's friend with his connections to the UK and the Italians. But since the conflict has started and even more so recently, the battle lines have been drawn. All of Qaddafi's imperialist friends have turned their back on him, leaving him to fight off a NATO intervention.
The rebels on the other hand have used prejudice persecution of any African immigrants suspected of being a mercenary. Also the rebels dedication has even been brought into question. One has to wonder if the rebels would still be around if not for the NATO intervention. John Lee Anderson says of his first hand account that some rebels are offended when the Libyan army uses live ammo(1). How can we take any armed group seriously when they don't think live ammo should be used in a war? We can not take them seriously.
Not to mention there is no clear ideology among the rebels. This coupled with the fact the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Qaddafi I think the battle lines are even more clear(2). It is now all to obvious that the rebels will allow imperialist free reign in their nation if their side is the victors. The ICC will only issue arrest warrants for people who are not imperialist running dogs. Notice how no warrants have been issued for Uribe the ex-Colombian "president" or any leaders who have had their citizens murdered.
This is to say that the battle lines are more clear today than when this conflict started. Today it is clear what side the communist and anti-imperialist should be on. We should now be clearly on the side of Qaddafi. To where earlier on the battle lines were fuzzy (though I'm sure that some groups that jumped the gun with supporting Qaddafi just because he has an anti-US history will claim they knew and were right all along no matter how big of a lie that would be) because both sides had imperialist interest invested in them, and the rebels at the beginning wanted only supply aid and opposed intervention. Today the rebels want ground troop (probably because they are afraid of and offended by the use of live ammo) intervention and have even sold some oil to their imperialist masters, including the US.(3)
As an anti-imperialist my first desire for all nations is the right to self determination. The Libyan people have directly stood up in favor of their leader Qaddafi. There is no question in my mind that if had NATO never intervened that the rebels would have lost this fight months ago. There for my desire for the self determination of the Libyan people has left me with no other group to support than that of the Qaddafi regime.
I believe that in light of recent events and in light of recent information it is the duty of all revolutionaries and anti-imperialist to support the Qaddafi regime.
Death to imperialism, and all of their running dogs!
Self-determination for the masses of Libya!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
(1)Anderson John Lee. Who are the rebels. The New Yorker. 4/4/2011. Web. 06/05/2011
(2)Schreck Adam, Corder Mike. Gaddafi Arrest Warrant Issued by International Criminal Court. Huffington Post. AP. 06/27/2011. Web. 07/06/2011
(3)Crawford Jamie. Libyan rebel group sells first oil to U.S. CNN. 06/08/2011. Web. 07/01/2011
When this conflict started Libyan leader Qaddafi was no less guilty then the so called rebels of being imperialism's friend with his connections to the UK and the Italians. But since the conflict has started and even more so recently, the battle lines have been drawn. All of Qaddafi's imperialist friends have turned their back on him, leaving him to fight off a NATO intervention.
The rebels on the other hand have used prejudice persecution of any African immigrants suspected of being a mercenary. Also the rebels dedication has even been brought into question. One has to wonder if the rebels would still be around if not for the NATO intervention. John Lee Anderson says of his first hand account that some rebels are offended when the Libyan army uses live ammo(1). How can we take any armed group seriously when they don't think live ammo should be used in a war? We can not take them seriously.
Not to mention there is no clear ideology among the rebels. This coupled with the fact the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Qaddafi I think the battle lines are even more clear(2). It is now all to obvious that the rebels will allow imperialist free reign in their nation if their side is the victors. The ICC will only issue arrest warrants for people who are not imperialist running dogs. Notice how no warrants have been issued for Uribe the ex-Colombian "president" or any leaders who have had their citizens murdered.
This is to say that the battle lines are more clear today than when this conflict started. Today it is clear what side the communist and anti-imperialist should be on. We should now be clearly on the side of Qaddafi. To where earlier on the battle lines were fuzzy (though I'm sure that some groups that jumped the gun with supporting Qaddafi just because he has an anti-US history will claim they knew and were right all along no matter how big of a lie that would be) because both sides had imperialist interest invested in them, and the rebels at the beginning wanted only supply aid and opposed intervention. Today the rebels want ground troop (probably because they are afraid of and offended by the use of live ammo) intervention and have even sold some oil to their imperialist masters, including the US.(3)
As an anti-imperialist my first desire for all nations is the right to self determination. The Libyan people have directly stood up in favor of their leader Qaddafi. There is no question in my mind that if had NATO never intervened that the rebels would have lost this fight months ago. There for my desire for the self determination of the Libyan people has left me with no other group to support than that of the Qaddafi regime.
I believe that in light of recent events and in light of recent information it is the duty of all revolutionaries and anti-imperialist to support the Qaddafi regime.
Death to imperialism, and all of their running dogs!
Self-determination for the masses of Libya!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
(1)Anderson John Lee. Who are the rebels. The New Yorker. 4/4/2011. Web. 06/05/2011
(2)Schreck Adam, Corder Mike. Gaddafi Arrest Warrant Issued by International Criminal Court. Huffington Post. AP. 06/27/2011. Web. 07/06/2011
(3)Crawford Jamie. Libyan rebel group sells first oil to U.S. CNN. 06/08/2011. Web. 07/01/2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Empty Rhetoric is Not What We Need!
I am noticing a trend. I see it with some groups more than with others. We have all heard the phrase "you're talking to big for your britches."
I was having a conversation that turned into a debate recently with a comrade about marching on Washington DC to demand a "stop to funding the Egyptian government." I was trying to debate him that this tactic has never worked and that the US government is not going to stop funding any of it's puppet governments just because the people take to the streets. It took me about ten minutes to realize that he was not debating me but rather just repeating democratic and the "they have to listen to us" rhetoric over and over again.
Just as a taste of what I mean (this was on a public site mind you) here are some clips of our discussion.
him- when has a US president ever supported democracy in a nation he controls?"
him-"Only when the people in the U.S. stand up & demand it!"
me-"I don't think even then he (Obama) will care *persons name. The riot police is all you will get."
him-"The U.S. gives Mubarak 2Billion dollars a year, we are funding the ones killing the pro democracy protesters. Cut off funding, and demand the dictator step down."(I hope by now my point is clear that while I'm trying to discuss/debate he is using empty slogans with no way to make these things happen)
me-"No, I understand and agree with your rhetoric I'm just saying that Obama won't do it no matter what. His stake in having a Egyptian puppet is more important than what the people of the US (notoriously pacifist)say."
him-"Speak for yourself, but not all people in the U.S. are as cynical as you. Resist the War Machine! Solidarity with Egyptian Democracy Movement."
me-"yes, nothing but solidarity with the Egyptian people! But it's called realistic and dialects not cynical. I speaking from historical and current stand point. If you can get the Obama administration to tell the government to resign and he stops sending them money because of your movement then I will give you a personal apology."(and I will if they do)
him-"Our goal is to end the U.S. Imperialist War Machine's domination of the U.S. & much of the world. Remember the 60s? We gained social change, but not political change. We will continue the struggle for democracy in the U.S. The corporate media can't continue to ignore us. The U.S. peace & democracy movement is building. 131 Peace activists (mostly vets) were arrested in front of the White House last month & we will have many more in March. Join the revolution!"
me-"I wouldn't call it a revolution yet brother. People need to understand that we have no democracy before they will revolt but most people in the US still believe we have democracy."(I didn't have the heart to tell him that the conditions are way off for revolt.)
Most of the conversation went on this way and it is something that I have noticed has become sort of a trend. Many people on the left have traded dialects for slogans (liberal ones at that.) I fear that rhetoric has come to replace logic in our communist movement. It seems like most people think if they repeat "we are winning! we are winning!" that somehow with out advancing even a little bit that we are in fact winning. Is this correct? NO, further more it makes the movement as a whole look silly. I recall a time where an ISO and a SP-USA member sat there and went back and forth for two hours and all they were really saying was "we are the vanguard" "nope, we are the vanguard" and both thought they were right because they believed their own rhetoric. But to someone unfamiliar with the movement they would probably roll their eyes and say something along the lines of "wow why are communist so full of themselves?"
So before we just go out yelling slogans at people instead of explaining ourselves, we need to ask ourselves: "Is what we are putting forward realistic?" "Is it achievable?" "If it is possible to attain this goal then what is the correct path to move the goal forward to a reality?" and most importantly; "how do the people want to carry this forward" and "Is this what is best for the people?" Because yes I have noticed that sometimes groups will do opportunistic campaigns to gain a few members even when if the campaign had succeeded that it would have been against the masses well being.
The masses well being should always be our number one driving force. Empty rhetoric and worthless slogans are not going to liberate the masses on it's own.
Logic shall be our only guiding light!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
I was having a conversation that turned into a debate recently with a comrade about marching on Washington DC to demand a "stop to funding the Egyptian government." I was trying to debate him that this tactic has never worked and that the US government is not going to stop funding any of it's puppet governments just because the people take to the streets. It took me about ten minutes to realize that he was not debating me but rather just repeating democratic and the "they have to listen to us" rhetoric over and over again.
Just as a taste of what I mean (this was on a public site mind you) here are some clips of our discussion.
him- when has a US president ever supported democracy in a nation he controls?"
him-"Only when the people in the U.S. stand up & demand it!"
me-"I don't think even then he (Obama) will care *persons name. The riot police is all you will get."
him-"The U.S. gives Mubarak 2Billion dollars a year, we are funding the ones killing the pro democracy protesters. Cut off funding, and demand the dictator step down."(I hope by now my point is clear that while I'm trying to discuss/debate he is using empty slogans with no way to make these things happen)
me-"No, I understand and agree with your rhetoric I'm just saying that Obama won't do it no matter what. His stake in having a Egyptian puppet is more important than what the people of the US (notoriously pacifist)say."
him-"Speak for yourself, but not all people in the U.S. are as cynical as you. Resist the War Machine! Solidarity with Egyptian Democracy Movement."
me-"yes, nothing but solidarity with the Egyptian people! But it's called realistic and dialects not cynical. I speaking from historical and current stand point. If you can get the Obama administration to tell the government to resign and he stops sending them money because of your movement then I will give you a personal apology."(and I will if they do)
him-"Our goal is to end the U.S. Imperialist War Machine's domination of the U.S. & much of the world. Remember the 60s? We gained social change, but not political change. We will continue the struggle for democracy in the U.S. The corporate media can't continue to ignore us. The U.S. peace & democracy movement is building. 131 Peace activists (mostly vets) were arrested in front of the White House last month & we will have many more in March. Join the revolution!"
me-"I wouldn't call it a revolution yet brother. People need to understand that we have no democracy before they will revolt but most people in the US still believe we have democracy."(I didn't have the heart to tell him that the conditions are way off for revolt.)
Most of the conversation went on this way and it is something that I have noticed has become sort of a trend. Many people on the left have traded dialects for slogans (liberal ones at that.) I fear that rhetoric has come to replace logic in our communist movement. It seems like most people think if they repeat "we are winning! we are winning!" that somehow with out advancing even a little bit that we are in fact winning. Is this correct? NO, further more it makes the movement as a whole look silly. I recall a time where an ISO and a SP-USA member sat there and went back and forth for two hours and all they were really saying was "we are the vanguard" "nope, we are the vanguard" and both thought they were right because they believed their own rhetoric. But to someone unfamiliar with the movement they would probably roll their eyes and say something along the lines of "wow why are communist so full of themselves?"
So before we just go out yelling slogans at people instead of explaining ourselves, we need to ask ourselves: "Is what we are putting forward realistic?" "Is it achievable?" "If it is possible to attain this goal then what is the correct path to move the goal forward to a reality?" and most importantly; "how do the people want to carry this forward" and "Is this what is best for the people?" Because yes I have noticed that sometimes groups will do opportunistic campaigns to gain a few members even when if the campaign had succeeded that it would have been against the masses well being.
The masses well being should always be our number one driving force. Empty rhetoric and worthless slogans are not going to liberate the masses on it's own.
Logic shall be our only guiding light!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)