Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thomas Seay <entheogens-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Taliban apologetics (bullshit)


<<Many Western lefties are saying the Taliban is so
bad
we cannot defend Afghanistan against imperialism.>>

I would like to dispute Scott's points and hear
comments from others.


There may be some that say that...but that is not my
point of view.  I oppose both the Taliban and US
intervention.  I really dont see how defending the
Taliban is a progressive act.

Do you think that somehow defending the Taliban
will weaken imperialism.  If so, how so?  The Taliban
is more than willing to allow access to their oil from
foreign companies, etc etc,

Also one thing I object to is the absolute negation,
this looking at the Afghan people as some kind of
abstract pawn.  These people are suffering and
starving now.  No food, no television, no education,
practically no entertainment of any kind, unless you
consider
visiting the football stadium on Friday to view the
lashings, and dismemberment and assasinations.

Scott, do you support that?  Are we supposed to
cede to this binary thinking that we have no choice
but to support either The Taliban or the United
States?
This is the kind of brilliant line of thinking that
I find amongst the vanguard parties here in the US...I
am beginning to believe that Vanguard parties have
somehow adopted the Catholic notion of purgatory....I
find this position lacking in any humanity.

Thomas
--- Scott Hamilton <s_h_hamilton-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Here's an alternative take on the same subject, from
> a
> NZ group...
> 
> In any imperialist war revolutionaries have to side
> with the country oppressed by imperialism,
> regardless
> of how bad its internal regime. This was Trotskys
> position in the war between Italy and Ethiopia in
> the
> 1930s. Why? Because the defeat of an oppressed
> country is a victory for imperialism and a defeat
> for
> workers everywhere. Those who cannot see this and
> refuse to defend Afghanistan because of the Taliban
> are covering for imperialism. This does not mean
> that
> we are supporters of the Taliban regime. On the
> contrary dictatorships in oppressed countries are
> usually installed by imperialism. While they may
> fall
> out periodically, such regimes owe their existence
> to
> imperialism. This is the case for theTaliban who are
> currently opposed to the US, but will probably do a
> deal at some point for a share in the oil weath in
> the
> region. We are against all US stooge regimes. We are
> for the victory of the Afghan people and the
> formation
> of a Workers and Peasants State. 
> 
> Many Western lefties are saying the Taliban is so
> bad
> we cannot defend Afghanistan against imperialism.
> This
> is a petty bourgeois moral position that ranks
> regimes
> against some abstract ideal of bourgeois democracy.
> The Talibans much-publicised treatment of opposition
> and women makes it very reactionary indeed. And once
> the regime is ranked as evil then it becomes
> indefensible even against imperialism. 
> 
> There is a fundamental confusion here. The ruling
> class or caste regimes are not the same as the
> country
> itself. When we say defend Afghanistan this does not
> mean defend the Taliban. We are for a defence based
> on the independent army of the masses i.e. workers
> and
> poor peasants and their intellectual allies. 
> 
> In the short term if theTaliban fights imperialism
> we
> may find ourselves in a military bloc with them.
> This
> is in principle possible and cannot be ruled out for
> any joint defence weakens imperialism. It also
> strengthens the popular forces and prepares the
> ground
> for the overthrow of the Taliban. However, such a
> bloc
> is unlikely because the Taliban will not tolerate
> any
> armed force that is not under its control. 
> 
> In practice then, the defence of Afghanistan will
> have
> to be based upon an independent popular army that
> finds itself opposed to both imperialism and the
> Taliban (probably the Northern Alliance as well).
> The
> difficulties faced by such a movement after decades
> of
> defeats at the hands of invasions and wars forces us
> to recognise that even with strong material aid from
> workers internationally the decisive opposition to
> imperialism has to come from the working classes of
> the imperialist countries themselves. 
> 
> Thus when we call for the defence of Afghanistan we
> also call for the defeat of imperialism. What does
> this mean? It does not mean we force a back down
> from
> Bushes war and run the war under the legal authority
> of the UN! 
> 
> This is the humanist imperialist line of people like
> Noam Chomsky. Imperiaism is not bad politics that
> can
> be cleaned up by a radical mobilising of peaceloving
> people. Imperialism is a system of capitalist
> super-exploitation and oppression of poor countries
> in
> order to extract super-profits for the ruling class.
> It can no more be reformed by democrats than
> capitalists can be made to give away their profits
> to
> the poor. 
> 
> Imperialism is capitalism in its final stage of
> development when it destroys more and more of the
> potential to creat wealth than it actually creates.
> It
> is the epoch of wars and depressions because that is
> the only way the capitalism can survive  fighting to
> divide, conquer and exploit the remaining resources
> available. Not to be imperialist is to die. 
> 
> That is why Capitalism has exhausted its ability to
> mask its ruthless anarchy by means of democratic
> fictions and illusions. Today it is not possible to
> have peace with justice without a revolution. Peace
> can only come with the ending of capitalism. Just as
> imperialism has thrown down the gauntlett in its
> drive
> to a war on terrorism, the working class to survive
> must mobilise its own war, a class war to defeat
> imperialism. 
> 
> A class war against imperialism means breaking
> workers
> from patriotism and pacifism. Patriotism leads them
> to
> go and fight for the imperialists to conquer and
> exploit other nations. Pacifism leads workers to
> refuse to answer the violence of their own ruling
> class with their own class violence. 
> 
> To refuse to oppose imperialist violence with
> working
> class violence is to allow imperialism to win by
> default. Petty bourgeois pacifism has an interest in
> ensuring this imperialist victory because out of
> gratitude imperialism allows petty bourgeois
> bureaucrats, intellectuals and politicians a share
> of
> the colonial booty. 
> 
> But imperialism cannot fight a war if its working
> class strikes against production for war. It cannot
> fight a war if the ranks of the military mutiny
> against war. That is why we say that the tasks of
> revolutionaries is to turn imperialist war into
> civil
> war! 
> 
> For a Workers and Peasants State. 
> http://www.geocities.com/communistworker/cs41.html
> 
> ====> For "a ruthless criticism of every existing idea":
> THR-AT-LL, NZ's class struggle anarchist paper
> http://www.freespeech.org/thrall/
> THIRD EYE, a Kiwi lib left project, at
> http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/
> and 'REVOLUTION' magazine, a Frankfurt-Christchurch
> production, http://cantua.canterbury.ac.nz/%7Ejho32/
> 
>
____________________________________________________________
> Nokia Game is on again. 
> Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the
> new
> all media adventure before November 3rd.
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---