tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post8395141241224773052..comments2024-03-01T08:19:54.547+00:00Comments on BobFromBrockley: How would you like it if I called you bilingual?bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-77635426255589124672010-01-23T21:52:43.154+00:002010-01-23T21:52:43.154+00:00Bob, he did not call himself an anarchist in the i...Bob, he did not call himself an anarchist in the interview you linked. As you noted, the interviewer states:<br /><br />"Although Avrich calls himself an anarchist" <br /><br />Yet Avrich is never quoted as saying this in the interview. <br /><br />At a public event at the Queens Public Library someone asked him point-blank, "Are you an anarchist?" and he replied "no."TNCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-45949365581448080612010-01-22T19:36:47.475+00:002010-01-22T19:36:47.475+00:00Hi Bob,
There were numerous problems with the who...Hi Bob,<br /><br />There were numerous problems with the whole Vietnam War. The GVN failed to win the loyalty of the people. In 1964, Major-General Edward G. Lansdale wrote an illuminating essay "Viet Nam: Do We Understand Revolution?" that was published in <i>Foreign Affairs</i>. (Vol. 43, No.1, October 1964). In this essay Lansdale argued that the lesson learned from the defeat of the Communists in Malaya and Philippines was that:<br /><br />"there must be a heartfelt <i>cause</i> to which the legitimate government is pledged, a cause which makes a stronger appeal to the people than the Communist cause."<br /><br />This lesson was simply ignored. Guenter Lewy, (<i>America in Vietnam</i> [Oxford University Press, 1978], p.93) comments "the attack on economic hardships and poverty did not address the conflicts in Vietnam society which the revolutionary movement exploited and used to motivate its forces."<br /><br />The corrupt South Vietnamese government did not obtain the loyalty of the population. <br /><br />America was assisting South Vietnam against the North, yet, in the early years of the war, America spent a substantial amount of their troops time on activities that caused damage to civilian life and property in the South. It is difficult to win the "hearts and minds" of the population if, as "[a] military analyst of air operations in the populated Delta area pointed out in January 1963 that less than highly accurate and discriminating air strikes took a heavy toll of essentially innocent men, women and children." (Lewy, p.96)<br /><br />Moreover, there were certainly other military activities of questionable worth. In the battle for "Hamburger Hill" in 1969, the Americans dropped "more than one million pounds of bombs including, 152,000 pounds of napalm." This ten day battle cost almost as many American lives and wounded soldiers as enemy losses. Once they finally captured the hill, they abandoned it as they realised that it had no strategic significance. (Lewy, pp.144-5) <br /><br />In my opinion, the tactics used by LBJ in that war was simply wrong. If the Americans were to fight it, they should have recognised early on that they were fighting a war, noted that the enemy was North Vietnam and dropped the bombs there, not in the South. <br /><br />This is just my opinion. <br /><br />Nonetheless, none of this takes away from the fact that the VC were engaged in terror. Literally tens of thousands of people were abducted and killed and between 1968 and 1972, the vast majority of them were ordinary civilians as opposed to officials, policeman etc. In January 1968, the VC/NVA seized the city of Hue and over 26 days killed or abducted 5,800 civilians. Such terror tactics were "an integral part of communist strategy." (Lewy, pp.272-77)Michael Ezranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-29047926284997032972010-01-22T13:39:25.888+00:002010-01-22T13:39:25.888+00:00After a visit to Wikipedia where I changed the ent...After a visit to Wikipedia where I changed the entry for Ben Tre, I found a source countering TNC's claim that Paul Avrich was not an anarchist: http://www.deadanarchists.org/contemporaries/Avrich.html a 2002 interview. Although he is not directly quoted saying "I am an anarchist"... <em>Although Avrich calls himself an anarchist, he says that some kind of government is necessary. "I would like to say it could work, but people would have to get along with each other very well."</em> Hmm. Sounds like he wasn't one after all, but did call himself one.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-78353402265286684292010-01-22T13:19:55.675+00:002010-01-22T13:19:55.675+00:00P.S. this moving account by an American veteran of...P.S. <a href="http://www.nhe.net/BenTreVietnam/" rel="nofollow">this moving account by an American veteran of Ben Tre</a> gives considerable credence to Arnett's quote, although Westmoreland is nowhere in sight.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-88092170476032172282010-01-22T13:17:18.410+00:002010-01-22T13:17:18.410+00:00Thanks for debunking that myth Michael. However, w...Thanks for debunking that myth Michael. However, while no American general ever said it, I think that the spirit of it is not completely untrue about the Vietnam war, and that is why even the most "decent" of decentists tend not to retrospectively OK the American campaign there. The massive onslaught unleashed on the civilian population was horrific; the use of WMDs was criminal. <br /><br />Placed next to what American did in Vietnam (and the bombing campaigns it rained down against Vietnam's neighbouring populations), even the worst moments of the Iraq war (say, Fallujah) seem comparatively innocent. <br /><br />(Although, to be fair, Bến Tre, about which the supposed quote was supposedly said, was by no means as dark a moment in the Vietnam war as some others. VDH knowns about this stuff, and I am prepared to take his word that the VC had destroyed much of it themselves. His wider point about counter-insurgency or counter-terrorist campaigns, when the enemy is embedded amongst the civilian population, carries some weight. On this score, though, the VC, an irreglar guerrilla army with fairly widespread roots in and support from the peasantry in the villages is very different from the Iraqi "resistance" who target their own civilian population, another point of contrast between Vietnam and Iraq.)bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-3408672997932453322010-01-22T09:28:15.357+00:002010-01-22T09:28:15.357+00:00Bob,
You quote Sean Matgamna as saying:
"Ge...Bob,<br /><br />You quote Sean Matgamna as saying:<br /><br />"General Westmoreland ... said that the Americans had had to destroy a city “in order to save it."<br /><br />This is nonsense. The quote is variously changed from "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it" and "We had to destroy a village to save it." The quote originated by Peter Arnett who did not provide his source. He certainly never claimed it was Westmoreland who said these words. Not only did not he not provide his source, as <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/hanson/hanson200411240704.asp" rel="nofollow">Victor Davis Hanson</a> commented, "An exhaustive investigation by the Pentagon never found any such official who said anything such thing."Michael Ezranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-63890581261647547732010-01-13T20:51:33.661+00:002010-01-13T20:51:33.661+00:00Well, it doesn't seem that people are interest...Well, it doesn't seem that people are interested in this thread, so i'll say this and let it lapse. I do agree with Bob's sentiment that "It is such a deeply held axiom of my faith that the Vietnam war was wrong that it is hard to think about it coldly now." <br /><br />But after all our discussions of what position to take vis-a-vis Iraq and Palestine et al, I feel myself looking back at Vietnam and questioning this deeply held belief. Just as Bob said that he came to realize that his positions on Spain and Germany where in contradiction, I have come to wonder if my positions on Palestine, the Soviet Union and Vietnam are in contradiction.<br /><br />I've become more interested in the US Socialist Party split over this matter; they were the only major Left group NOT to oppose the Vietnam War, and this made them split into three: the left became today's SPUSA; the middle fused with another group and became DSA; and the right became SDUSA (pronounced, I am told, "sedusa"!) -- hardcore anti-communist social democratic hawks. Bayard Rustin belonged to the later faction (as well as Paul Wolfowitz, and possibly Jeane Kirkpatrick).<br /><br />There's clearly a lesson and moral in here, although I am not sure what it is.<br /><br />I'll keep working on it for another time.radicalarchiveshttp://www.radicalarchives.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-72906306333613028102010-01-12T12:12:49.176+00:002010-01-12T12:12:49.176+00:00To be honest, I am really not sure what I think. I...To be honest, I am really not sure what I think. It is such a deeply held axiom of my faith that the Vietnam war was wrong that it is hard to think about it coldly now. <br /><br />Certainly, it would be utterly wrong to actually support the Viet Minh; North Vietnam was a repressive Stalinist regime, although far less brutal than many other variants of Stalinism. <br /><br />On the other hand, its original struggle against French colonialism, Japanese fascism, and the brutal authoritarian regime of Bao Dai was broadly a positive one, and later the South Vietnamese government that the US was backing was a repressive and authoritarian regime, close to Catholic clerical-facsism. (In the most positive light, North Vietnam might be compared to Republican Spain or Tito's Yugoslavia. In the most negative light, South Vietnam could be compared to Franco's Spain or the Shah's Iran.)<br /><br />Further, the American prosecution of the war was criminally excessive, way way beyond anything that Iraq or Afghanistan has seen, way beyond the Israeli offensive in Gaza.<br /><br />I'll ponder further on this. In the meantime, here's Sean Matgamna: <em>"We didn’t back the Americans against the Stalinists in Vietnam, of course, but we were right not to do that. Whatever theory one might have that the Americans might perhaps set up bourgeois democracy in Vietnam, in practice they represented the pulverisation and destruction of that society. It was summed up by General Westmoreland in early 1968 when, during one offensive of the Stalinists, he said that the Americans had had to destroy a city “in order to save it”. They were destroying the country “to save it from Stalinism”. You couldn’t support that. You had to oppose it."</em><br /><br />And here's <a href="http://www.jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/remembering_bayard_rustin" rel="nofollow">Bayard Rustin</a>: <em>Rustin explained that while he was not a supporter of increasing American military involvement in Vietnam, "Nor can I go along with those who favor immediate U.S. withdrawal, or who absolve Hanoi and the Vietcong from all guilt. A military takeover by those forces would impose a totalitarian regime on South Vietnam and there is no doubt in my mind that the regime would wipe out independent democratic elements in the country."</em>bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-87284907988650039472010-01-11T20:23:11.960+00:002010-01-11T20:23:11.960+00:00Hitchens dosn't say much more than Vietnamese=...Hitchens dosn't say much more than Vietnamese=good, Hussein=bad. Last time I checked Vietnam was a one party state that was, at least post-war, filled with re-education camps. Forget I said "Iraq", because this is leading away from the question. People here are trying to find an anti-nationalist, anti-Stalinist, anti-dictatorship position vis-a-vis Iraq (and elsewhere) -- but what happens when you take that same critique and look at Vietnam? (Forgive me if i'm just restating myself.) Wasn't saying simply "troops out" at demos the same as chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh!" -- which many activists did, some to their retrospective chagrin?radicalarchiveshttp://www.radicalarchives.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-797083482270692010-01-11T17:11:30.729+00:002010-01-11T17:11:30.729+00:00Good question.
Prelude to an answer: Hitchens...Good question. <br /><br />Prelude to an answer: Hitchens' annual claim that Vietnam is not Iraq. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2095578/" rel="nofollow">The mistake Democrats make when they compare Iraq to Vietnam</a> (2004), <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2098642/" rel="nofollow">Why the analogy doesn't hold water</a> (2004), <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2112895/" rel="nofollow">Why Iraq and Vietnam have nothing whatsoever in common</a> (2005), <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2143011/" rel="nofollow">Why Haditha isn't My Lai</a> (2006), <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/26/comment.usa1" rel="nofollow">To invoke Vietnam was a blunder too far for Bush</a> (2007).bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-20046813998962833542010-01-11T15:00:35.479+00:002010-01-11T15:00:35.479+00:00OK, so since we're on this topic: what positio...OK, so since we're on this topic: what position should the Left have taken in the Vietnam war? <br /><br />The North Vietnamese were a Popular Front composed of a Stalinist CP (which had massacred its Trotskyist opposition) aligned with "bourgeois" nationalist elements in a so-called "national liberation struggle", against a capitalist government in the South. Obviously, the takeover of all of post-partition Vietnam resulted in the creation of another Stalinist state. <br /><br />Why was the Left's position in Vietnam any different than with Iraq or Afghanistan?radicalarchiveshttp://www.radicalarchives.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-6004731139181818762010-01-11T13:49:10.839+00:002010-01-11T13:49:10.839+00:00I see via Coatesy http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress...I see via Coatesy http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/chomsky-and-la-vieille-taupe/ that this has flaired up again in the mainstream media: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/10/malcolm-caldwell-pol-pot-murderbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-58185754353156629632010-01-11T13:34:18.428+00:002010-01-11T13:34:18.428+00:00@ndy,
No problems, I'll happily re-state my a...@ndy,<br /><br />No problems, I'll happily re-state my argument which is that<br /><br />1) Chomsky is essentially soft on rightwing militia depend on where they come from<br />2) Chomsky supports the increase of guns and armaments into a volatile region of the world, the Middle East<br />3) Chomsky wouldn't support the arming of rightwing militia in the United States, because that's a bit too close to home, yet he's happy for rightwing militia in Lebanon to be up to their eyeballs in guns rockets and other useless killing machinery <br /><br />4) that is not the stance of a consistent intellectual, and certainly not the world’s greatest intellectual.<br /><br />I might have missed something out, but that should do the now.ModernityBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354254639321208955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-57601776442477252352010-01-11T07:56:44.820+00:002010-01-11T07:56:44.820+00:00Btw, it's over 40 degrees Celsius in Melbourne...Btw, it's over 40 degrees Celsius in Melbourne today, and I'm sweating like some kinda capitalist pig during a stockmarket crash.@ndyhttp://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-60182699188042284942010-01-11T07:54:36.789+00:002010-01-11T07:54:36.789+00:00@ ModernityBlog:
Um... I've responded to Bob ...@ ModernityBlog:<br /><br />Um... I've responded to Bob (at length), and wrote that I would return to yrself and Waterloo. But I think it would help me do so if you could re-state yr argument again inre Chomsky and right-wing miltias in the US. As I understand it, it has something to do with an alleged double-standard: supporting Hamas, on the one hand, but being in favour of gun control in the US, on the other. Please correct me if I'm wrong.@ndyhttp://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-61456579962978005682010-01-10T14:56:04.322+00:002010-01-10T14:56:04.322+00:00So @ndy,
What about the point concerning arming o...So @ndy,<br /><br />What about the point concerning arming of right-wing militia<br /><br />Did the point get made?ModernityBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354254639321208955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-14600428499133606902010-01-10T14:30:55.217+00:002010-01-10T14:30:55.217+00:00Finally got around to Chomsky on Cambodia. Have tr...Finally got around to Chomsky on Cambodia. Have tried to include most extensive and recent writings on subject. Yet to conclude.<br /><br />http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=12441@ndyhttp://slackbastard.anarchobase.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-48419350548180096352010-01-07T16:24:07.030+00:002010-01-07T16:24:07.030+00:00@ @andy:
Just looking at the Chomsky piece in Stan...@ @andy:<br />Just looking at <a href="http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2596" rel="nofollow">the Chomsky piece in Standpoint</a> (thanks Flesh) and the <a href="http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/1409/chomsky_half_full/" rel="nofollow">Chomsky interview it relates to</a>. <br /><br />Chomsky's very cagey about his alleged friendship with Chavez, and constantly asks why people obsess with this, when they could equally say it about other Latin American heads of state. <em>The question arises about Chavez, not Lula (who I know a lot better) or Correa (who I just spent a few hours with) or many others who are at the heart of the “pink tide” because Chavez is demonized by state/media propaganda. I don’t accept that.</em> <br /><br />To me, there is a fundamental difference between Chavez, a deeply authoritarian ruler, and Lula, a fundamentally democratic figure, and Chomsky's question is therefore deeply disingenuous. By "not accepting" media demonization, he is implicitly defending him, which is wrong.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-70134761227759308912010-01-07T16:19:28.041+00:002010-01-07T16:19:28.041+00:00On Popular Frontism. This is a very good question,...On Popular Frontism. This is a very good question, and one which I have been thinking hard about for over a year, and becoming more rather than less confused and contradictory. <br /><br />I first started thinking in terms of United Front versus Popular Front under the influence of Trotskyists, and especially through the writings of Leon Trotsky. Trotsky developed the ideas in relation to the correct policy of the Communist Party in Germany. He (rightly) criticised Third Period ultra-leftism, whereby the Social Democrats (Ebertists?) were deemed "social fascists" and therefore just as bad a the Nazis. He called for a united front with them, but not an alliance with "bourgeois" anti-Nazis. I followed that line of reasoning.<br /><br />On Spain, on the other hand, I came to my position a little later, under the influence of anarchists and left communists, and especially through the writings of Orwell. Here, while Franco was the real enemy, the Communists came to be the enemy too, and alliance with them was wrong. I followed that line of reasoning.<br /><br />Essentially, I realise now, these two positions are contradictory and incompatible. But I don't know how to resolve them. I honestly don't know what course of action I would have taken had I been active in Spain or Germany in the moments in question. <br /><br />The comparison with Iran is good, because the Shah stands some comparison with Franco (Franco was more culturally repressive than the Shah, if equally politically repressive), and the Iranian revolution, which I am sure I would initially have defended at least to some extent, ushered in something that, it is now very, very clear, was far, far worse. (This makes Chomsky's initial positive appraisal of Pol Pot also more understandable, as an apparent positive step from the Lon Nol military regime.)bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-18258534260116028852010-01-07T16:05:09.956+00:002010-01-07T16:05:09.956+00:00On the Drink-Soaked Trots: I guess drink has ravag...On the Drink-Soaked Trots: I guess drink has ravaged them a little too much. Their great helmsman, Will, and deputy Hak Mao are no longer blogging either. Former Popinjays still operating include Terry Glavin, George Szirtes, the Fat Man and Graeme, who has moved to <a href="http://roarofthemasses.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts</a>. Follow links from blogroll (Graeme link to be updated). <br /><br />On Chomsky in general. I ought to repeat that I do have a lot of respect for him. A lot of his work is very useful. Some of his mistakes are indeed honest.<br /><br />On "the resistance". Well, yes, purely technically, anyone resisting anything could be "the resistance". In my household, say, I am "the resistance" to domestic chores. But usually when you hear it, you think of the French people in fields at the dead of night blowing up bridges and stuff like that. The "insurrection", in my mind, is a more neutral expression. This, incidentally, has been a fierce topic of discussion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_resistance&redirect=no" rel="nofollow">at wikipedia</a>, where the stakes are quite clear.<br /><br />On liberation. I guess you are right about that. <br /><br />On preferred versus less bad. I think you know what I mean. And I think I'm right. Apart from Hitchens and maybe Kamm, few Decents were actually enthusiastic about the war. See Ian McEwan <em>Saturday</em> for insight into the this.<br /><br />On Harryism and fellow traveling. I don't get your meaning WS. Fellow travelles are by definition tainted by the association, no? But you only really use that phrase when the thing being associated with is monstrous, as in fascism and Stalinism. Being a fellow traveller of Harry's Place doesn't seem too horrific a crime to me. It may be that they are too quick to call anyone with the most remote link to Hamas a fellow traveller of Hamas, but there is such a thing as a Hamas fellow traveller, and it is unpleasant. Am I missing your point?<br /><br />On 9/11. I don't think anyone serious on the left saw 9/11 as a good thing. But the "chickens coming home to roost" response was incredibly common. Of course, it was true on one level: the events were related to the sequence of events that preceded it, including American foreign policy. But it fundamentally misinterpreted the nature of Al-Qaeda's millennial ideology, and it explained away the evil of what they did.<br /><br />One more to come.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-91640794653654061522010-01-07T13:04:09.242+00:002010-01-07T13:04:09.242+00:00Slightly OTT but... I can't get www.drinksoake...Slightly OTT but... I can't get www.drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com to work. Are them's still kicking?@ndyhttp://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-22035332267987683572010-01-06T16:20:56.172+00:002010-01-06T16:20:56.172+00:00Long piece by decentis Cohen on Chomsky. Not ungen...Long piece by decentis Cohen on Chomsky. Not ungenerous.<br />http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2596fleshisgrasshttp://fleshisgrass.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-14593097124401629992010-01-06T16:17:24.655+00:002010-01-06T16:17:24.655+00:00I think that the more broadly defined Decent movem...<i>I think that the more broadly defined Decent movement emerged not in response to Iraq but a bit earlier, after 9/11, with the disgust that many basically decent people on the left felt at the common response from many others on the left (including Chomsky) that this was basically America's chickens coming home to roost.</i><br /><br />Who on the left actually saw 9/11 as justified or even a broadly good thing? (Green Anarchist may have come close. I don't know that for certain, but at the time I recall that they were describing any act of nihilism, from kids smashing up bus shelters to the gas attack in Tokyo, as an indicator of societal breakdown). <br /><br />Is it really that outrageous to suggest that 9/11 may have at least been influenced by previous events? Do we have to take the 'end of history' approach to every single atrocity? Personally, I see the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as being closely linked to the US funding of Islamic fundamentalist groups in Afghanistan. Is that really beyond the pale?<br /><br />If, on the other hand, you're defining "Decent" as anyone who saw 9/11 as entirely unjustifiable, without qualifications, that's way too broad. It would even include the likes of Class War.<br /><br /><br /><i>Very few of these people saw military intervention as a preferred option, but many did see it as a less bad option.</i><br /><br />What's the difference between "preferred" and "less bad"?<br /><br /><i>On the workers' state/liberal democracy thought experiment: I get the point, but I do think that actual liberal democracy is qualitatively different from Stalinist totalitarianism; they are not just two sides of the same coin.</i><br /><br />Surely capitalism is responsible for at least as many deaths as Stalinism?<br /><br />Even if you accept that though, does that justify refusing to support progressive resistance against state power in liberal democracies? Or does it illustrate that, actually, the "Decents" are in effect pro capitalist partisans?<br /><br />If so, maybe a new term is needed to reflect that.<br /><br />How about "the White Army"?Waterloo Sunsetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-14465244108462879842010-01-06T16:16:55.395+00:002010-01-06T16:16:55.395+00:00Bob-
On lesser evilism. Chomsky initially thought...Bob-<br /><br /><i>On lesser evilism. Chomsky initially thought of Pol Pot quite positively, and spoke of the Khmer Rouge victory as liberation. </i><br /><br />Point taken. The only vague defense of that I can think of is that I believe that Chomsky was at least genuine about being utterly wrong.<br /><br /><i>it seems to me that the sort of suffering that existed under Pol Pot or Hitler was so great that any regime change, even if effected from without by states with bad motivations, was desirable. The prospect of the Cambodia people rising up against Pol Pot was just unthinkable.</i><br /><br />Serious question. Do you believe that allying with Stalinists in Spain was the correct thing to do, despite how it turned out? And how do you reconcile that with your oppostion to popular front establishment anti-fascism in the UK?<br /><br />Besides that, I think we have to look at the wider picture. And lesser evilism has consistently failed to provide a solution to oppression. It's replaced one reactionary regime with another. Iran is a perfect example of what leftist less evilism leads to, where you had the left react to the undoubted evils of the Shah by lining up with the Mullahs. By doing so, weren't they morally culpable for the later atrocities?<br /><br /><i>I think the SWP themselves think of the Iraqi “resistance” as a lesser evil than American imperialism (I think they’re wrong) rather than a good in itself. However, the very use of the word “resistance”, whether used honestly or cynically means at the very least they are glorifying this lesser evil, promoting an illusory view of it.</i><br /><br />It's arguably used cynically, because of the obvious rhetorical similarites with groups like the French resistance. Technically, it's not incorrect though, surely? Purely in linguistic terms, a group resisting any other group is the 'resistance', without that attaching any value judgement to the term.<br /><br />But how can you possibly argue that the SWP glorify the Iraqi 'resistance' through the use of the term, but describing Russia's victory on the Eastern Front as 'liberation' isn't de facto cheerleading for Stalinism?<br /><br /><i>Whereas the likes of Galloway actually do think it is glorious.</i><br /><br />Absolutely. But Galloway has been grubbing round for a new cause to support since the fall of the Stalinist states, so it's unsurprising.<br /><br /><i>On Decentism. I guess there is Decentism and there is Decentism (as there is far leftism and far leftism). If we are talking narrowly about, say, some Harry's Place people, then I'd agree with a lot of what you say (I use the term Harryism for this).</i><br /><br />Isn't one of the main strands of the pro war left's arguments that you can't be a fellow traveller of groups like Hamas without being tainted by the association? And while Harryism may be a particularly easy target, other more 'moderate' decents still cite them uncriticaly and largely talk about them as being on the same side. Is being a fellow traveller of Harryism actually that much more acceptable then being a Harryist?<br /><br />It's true that there are people who have disassociated themselves strongly from Harryism, but they're also the same people who have washed their hands of Decentism as well. (The Drink Soaked Trots being the obvious example).<br /><br /><i>If you are talking about Norman Geras, then some of it seems clearly wrong (can you really say he is authoritarian through and through?).</i><br /><br />I have to say I don't actually know enough about Geras to draw any valid conclusions.Waterloo Sunsetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-52929299025284339202010-01-06T15:59:44.309+00:002010-01-06T15:59:44.309+00:00WS, didn't read your Decentist comments proper...WS, didn't read your Decentist comments properly, and see that you clearly define what you mean by DL later, which includes Kamm/Hoare and excludes Hitch & the Popinjays. Seems to me it also excludes Norm and the Euston Manifesto, though, which surely makes it a little narrow? Maybe we need to talk about left decentism (or Popinjayism) and right decentism (or Harryism). And maybe even centrist decentism (me?). And then there's Aaronovitch and Democratiya, the two hate figures of the Indecents, who don't quite fit into the Kamm camp. And Hari, ex-Decent? And Martin Bright, who probably fits into your narrow definition. And Freedland, who might too. <br /><br />On alliances with conservatives, all of these sharply condemned the Conservative Friends of Israel dalliance with the Polish and Latvian right, which created a minor spat in the Jewish Chronicle between neocon editor Stephen Pollard and decentist political editor Martin Bright. <br /><br />Sorry, getting a bit angels on a pinhead. I'll stop.<br /><br />Oh, and Radical Archives is a very cool site, and I forgot to go to Reading The Maps.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.com