babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Anti-Imperialist
December 22, 2011 - 7:32am
The following appears at the beginning of the Babble Policy:
Quote:
rabble.ca is a public, independent, progressive news and information source. In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.
I believe anti-imperialist was the most recent to be added.
I wonder if some discussion could take place regarding what constitutes an "anti-imperialist stance" since this seems to be a point of contention/conflict on the board recently.
Can you point to some recent examples of contention/conflict?
I can't point to specifi thread but I think the issue has come up in discussions about Kim Il-Jong and Libya, to just give two examples.
Every day, in every way. As you well know, SJ. That rhymes, hey hey! Whaddya say?
On a more prosaic note:
Do we stand with or against people/nations/countries resisting territorial, military, economic, political, cultural, and other forms of interference, aggression, war, domination, control, annexation, occupation, resource plunder, and labour exploitation by other countries, especially the wealthiest, best-armed, and most bellicose?
That's my proposed litmus test. Subject to refinement.
That looks like a good definition.
Where it gets sticky around here, is where the definition applies.
For example, refraining from jumping on bandwagons [Libya, North Korea] is at least arguably part of that, irregardless of how loathsome the regimes are.
On the one of the perennial World War II threads a while back, some babblers made the argument that, contrary to American propaganda, the USA got involved with war against Japan for reasons of imperial expansion, rather than, as the propaganda has it, to promote democracy.
As far as I know, that's probably true. Certainly America's postwar policies in the region didn't do much to advance democracy. But if I say "Well, I didn't like anything about US policy in East Asia before WW2(Taft-Katsura etc), and I really don't like anything about their policies post WW2(backing dictaors etc)" but I do think they were on the right side of WW2", does that make me an apologist for US imperialism?
Because I don't think you'll find too many residents of former Japanese colonies who think that the US was wrong to join the fight against Japan. Even old Kim Il-sung gave a speech at the end of the war, in which he thanked the Russians and the Americans for their efforts.
MANY, if not most Indonesian nationalists, preferred the Japanese- knowing full well what they did.
And we don't have to get into the outer limits of what is imperialism to talk about a common definition. In fact, that is guaranteed to distract and derail.
The most that could be said about the ergument the US in WWII was more imperialism, is that of course it would have at least elements of that, and it is arguable that it is first of all an imperialist venture [or at least reccible to imperialist rivalry].
But that is WAY OFF being the kind of position we can expect some kind of minimum concensus around here. Which is the context of the topic.
In other words, dont take the thread title too [narrowly] literally.In context, it is not a question of what might be considered to be imperialism.
The most that could be said about the ergument the US in WWII was more imperialism, is that of course it would have at least elements of that, and it is arguable that it is first of all an imperialist venture [or at least reccible to imperialist rivalry].
Point taken about Indonesia.
But just to clarify, if I say "I'm glad the US fought agianst Japan in World War II"(similar to what most babblers would say aboout the US fighting in Europe, I'd imagine) is that, in and of itself, a pro-imperialist statement?
I can't stand with the mullahs in Iran, or with those who are influenced by the resources of western endowment agencies designed to create resistance against them. Someone like Malalai Joya or Arundhati Roy...I'd prefer to stand with them. No one suggests that we need to stand with the Taliban or with the North Korean regime because we despise imperialism. All the same, we can take our definitions where we find them, including from the recesses of our own consciousness, without having to be browbeaten back into line. We need to be able to speak emphatically against imperialism; not only because it is so richly deserving of being spoken against, and not only because such caveats are often demanded as a way to measure our compliance with someone else's progressive scale. At any rate, it seems that it is rarely a given in our discussions. The same sleeve wearing denunciations are not generally demanded when we speak in the context of repressive regimes. This is in fact discouraged, on the presumed basis that we're lending comfort and validity to the narratives of our reactionary enemies. I think we should be free to reject the false choices between dichotomies and between displays of political contortionism formed out of cement. But we can't put the people out of our minds. They should never be used as anyone's excuse. We need to do a better job of understanding the difference between discussing people and discussing the various political systems they fall under.
Didn't Catchfire already say he was regretting letting us know he would be checking in? I am sure this will be a fun an dlively discussion, but I am not sure it is the best way to wish Happy Holidays.
Because really, nothing we hash out or decide here matters. What does matter is how those words are applied by the moderators.
"Anti-Imperialism", and what constitutes fair comment around that can mean a wide range of things depending on whether you are a lay person, a journalist, a partisan, or a conspiracy theorist.I know for a fact it doesn't have the same meaning for all of us here.
(edit)
And of course, nothing is going to get decided because there is no one right and definitive position.
No. I would not think by the mods here.
[If I'm wrong. Even more reason to stay away from Babble international discussins.]
Correct. But those who oppose the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, or the mounting hysteria against Iran, etc., are constantly blackmailed as follows: "Oh, so you prefer the Taliban ruling Afghanistan? You liked Saddam Hussein's regime? Gaddafi's? Kim's? The mullahs? The rockets fired from Gaza? Girls not being allowed to go to school in Kandahar?"
Those who ask those questions, and who do not oppose the invasions and the threats, are the pro-imperialists. If that's not clear, then nothing can be.
Oh, and I have a question for Ken, about Indonesia.
Prior to being occupied by Japan, Indonesia was a colony of the Dutch. It got independence in 1949, after which point it fell under American influence, in the form of US-backed dictators(especially Suharto in that category).
Just for clarification, when you say that "many, if not most, Indonesian nationalists preferred the Japanese", do you mean as opposed to the Dutch, or the American-backed dictators, or both?
Yeah, this is lovely. Canadians talking about which colonizer the Indonesian nationalists "preferred". That'll get us a lot closer to an understanding of anti-imperialism.
Which brings us to another charming aspect of these discussions. No one talks about fight club.
Conversely, those who describe the Taliban as repressive are accused of falling in line with imperialism. I'll pull a 'Hitch' here to say that its too bad there isn't a hell for both them and the imperialists. I think this is roughly where we should situate ourselves...if its clarity that is being sought.
Well, from what I know, the Taliban regime was repressive, misogynist, obscurantist, and generally despicable.
However, that was, and is, a matter to be resolved by the Afghan people alone, without threats, interference, invasion, etc.
Likewise with Gaddafi and Libya.
So you see? We can tell the truth about the Taliban if we like. What we can't do is go in there and save those poor Afghans from a fate worse than being part of global imperialism's stable of loyal servants.
If we announce a capstone to our ideology which in part says we can or can't do, must or mustn't engage in, depending on the circumstance, wouldn't it be better to include that it should only be invoked, using this instance as an example, to deal with the specifics of such a proposal.
Someone mentioned that we can tell the truth about what awful regimes are doing, but we can't go there with military force to do anything about it. Short of actually entering another country, are there any non-imperialist acts that Canada could perform that would "motivate" another sovereign nation to change its ways? I'm thinking about petitions to the UN, economic sanctions, freezing assets, diplomatic shunning and the expultion of ambassadors or closing embassies, not allowing overflight priviledges, and so forth. I think those actions would be absolutely acceptable, they don't require UN approval, and they don't involve military force.
We'd have to do something about our lack of consistency first, by shunning the hypocrites for starters.
The so called 'communists' were able to distinguish very well as they bounced between Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. They certainly had their reasons.
If that's directed at me, I should be clear that I have no problem with Canada's UN-approved military involvements in Afghanistan or Libya (obviously). I was just trying to figure out where imperialism (as defined by the participants here) starts, and "motivation" ends.
It wasn't about you specifically, but you managed to implicate yourself in the comment anyway with such a statement. If we're to act unilaterally against awful regimes in order to lay claim to some high ground, we'd have to first stop operating around the world in conjunction with awful regimes, and we'd have to stop presenting ourselves as an awful regime to the nations who live within the political boundaries of this country.
Yes. Anti-imperialism begins at home.
To provide a range...for the purpose of context.
I'm having trouble understanding what historical events and trajectories are being discussed here. As far as I know, Communists didn't "bounce between Stalin and Mao". In fact, if you were pro-Stalin, you supported Mao after Khruschev's denunciations, because it was China that continued to promote Stalin.
It might be more accurate to say that people bounced between Moscow and Beijing. And then some over to Tirana after China anoounced its Three World policy in the 70s(which could actually be categorized as a bounce away from Mao, since he had formulated that policy).
Is it really necessary to derail the thread into a discussion of different flavours of communism? Have we already solved the puzzle of what it means for babble to be anti-imperialist, and we're on to other challenges?