Lenin’s Tomb
"in Nagasaki and Hiroshima - to go off without much of a bang (in 1995, 59% of Americans still approved of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki)."
How would have ended the war, Lenny. Amphibious invasion of Japan's main island? A march on Tokyo? I'd really like to know.
The war was over. Japan had no fuel to move its ships to hiding places, let alone attack anywhere. Manchuria was about to be invaded by the SU. Like the bombing of Dresden, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to influence SU foreign policy.
The U.S. gov't was well aware that Japan was preparing to surrender; the criminal a-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was rushed forward not to 'end the war', but to send a warning to the USSR.
(Even so, the U.S. Stalinists of the day, pushing the line that Hayward now repeats, grotesquely endorsed these atrocities against the Japanese civilian population.)
What most impressed Stalin, as it was no doubt supposed to, was how unnecessary the savagery of Hiroshima was.
Great title for your post. A good alternative title for HP I think.
Very good writing. Too bad it's soaked in whacko Leftist syrup. FUCKING HELL YOU PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT!
Scott happens to be right. The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded after the war that the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima was entirely unnecessary, since Japan had already tried to offer peace. This is confirmed in declassified US government records in which the attempt to offer peace on the part of the Japanese is alluded to.
Anyway, I'm somewhat crippled by Donna's insightful criticism and feel I may have to take a few days off in light of it. Just to reconnect the ganglions in my brain. Uh huh.
The warmed-up Enlightenment 'universalism' of the imperial left is entirely bogus because it refuses to judge, say, America or Israel by the standards it would apply to any non-Western state, and because it minimises the actual crimes of those states.
says it all, really.
Ignorant of what, exactly?
Meaders - don't you realise that we critics of US power are just ig'nant?
Well of course the a-bomb was unnecessary. Supposedly the sticking point was Japan was demanding to keep their emperor, and we no way, and for that reason we dropped the bomb, but later we left them keep the emperor anyway. Anyway, the 1 million precious US dead in the invasion that would never have occurred figure is also wrong - the real figure is 36,000, not that it matters. The 2nd a-bomb was dropped because we only had 2, and we wanted to drop em both if you can believe that. The first one was dropped, well, to see that it would actually work, for one reason. Other reasons are discussed above. The Japanese never even knew what the Hell hit them after the first bomb. The second bomb was entirely unnecessary by any accounting.
WRT to Islamism, Lenin, can you show us precisely when and where Islamism was a liberal or even Leftist force?! I mean, an Islamism that actually held power. I am straight up with the Afgan Communists and the Iraqi Worker-Communist Party. Both of them totally hate the Islamists as reactionaries. I was at an Afghan Communist Party website the other day and they even used the word "Islamofascism" then went on to show how Islamism resembles traditional fascism in some typical (mostly social reactionary) ways. The Afghan Communists got pounded by these bastards for decades, all the way back to the 60's. And the Afghan Communists had tremendous support amongst women, students, urban workers, rural serfdom, all the usual oppressed classes. And the Islamist Rightists slaughtered them for years for suggesting that girls can go to school, for ending bride prices, and for trying stop similar barbarism.
In Palestine, the Islamists attacked and killed the Left for years. Algeria - same game. It's going on in Iraq. I knew an Iranian Communist who sneaked out of Iran on a donkey in the desert and left countless dead comrades behind. I am sorry - these Islamist scum have killed our comrades every single chance they ever got and we are apologizing, or at least refusing to verbally thrash them for WHAT reason Lenin? And are they *really* anti-imperialist, Lenin? For the Islamist has his own brand of *yes* supremacism, of all things, for supremacism is an innate part of radical Islamism, as I'm sure even you can see. And radical Islam, while nobly opposes the imperialism of USreal and her lackeys, also, trust me, aspires to impose its own forms of imperialism and domination, if only inside the state. Sudan looks like a case of internal imperialism within the Sudanese state to me.
"I mean, an Islamism that actually held power."
Well, that's a fairly arbitrary restriction, is it not? I was going to refer you to the Mujahiden-e-Khalq and a few famous left-wing Egyptian Islamists.
"I was at an Afghan Communist Party website the other day and they even used the word "Islamofascism" then went on to show how Islamism resembles traditional fascism in some typical (mostly social reactionary) ways."
They "show" this, do they? True, the Afghan communists got 'pounded' by these people for decades. But then perhaps it was wrong to rally behind a brutal Soviet invasion. I'm afraid I have no sympathy with Stalinists who justify their support for Soviet brutality by referring to the Islamists.
I repeat and underline: Islamism is both conservative and radical, and manifests itself as such in the ways described in the post. If you want more, I'll post details.
And the anti-colonialism of the Islamists in the case of Palestine is predicated more on yucky anti-Semitism than anything else, IMHO. I bet if Palestine got invaded and conquered by Arabs, the Islamists would just shrug and go live in exile. And yet, and yet, the anti-imperialist front nowadays, at least the one that ought to be confronting USreal and her lackeys, is limper than a dead man's dick. I will hand it to the Salafist bastards, the are about the only people with the balls to take on world mega-imperialism these days. I'd almost sooner support these Islamist reactionaries than this pitiful "pro-imperialist Left" cancer. Hell, at least these Salafist reactionaries fight (US) imperialism. But it's a sad state on the world when baddest fighters against world imperialism are a bunch of reactionary throwbacks!
There, another of my endless comments, eh? :)
That last rant caught me unawares. No, the Islamists are not our allies; yes, they can be left-wing as well as right-wing. No, one does not support those who attack the left; yes, the Islamists can be anti-imperialist.
Yes, I agree with lenin. Only when the left judges liberal democracies in the same way they do Islamofascist totalitarian tyrannies, and see reactionary bigoted values as the moral equivalence to liberal values, and support the Taliban as he did, will there ever be justice in this world.
And of course, Islamofascism means exactly the same thing as Judofascism, even though one is a race, and another is a religion, folks. And yes, Islamofascism is just a reaction to western imperialism. Certainly this wasn't the form of Islam that was practised before the west set foot in the middle east, and its proponents certainly do not believe they are going back to their roots. Oh no. There would be no ideologies in the world today without western imperialism, you know.
And well done for owning up to the fact you have more in common with the right than the left these days, lenin. A lot of leftists who take your isolationist, non-interventionist rightist view, are very coy about admitting h
"And the anti-colonialism of the Islamists in the case of Palestine is predicated more on yucky anti-Semitism than anything else, IMHO."
That would explain why Israel started funding Hamas etc.
...how you are in fact brothers in arms with the BNP and ultra conservatives around the world. But you have accepted it in full. That was very brave of you.
PS. lenin is the same chump who didn't even understand the Islamofascist ideological drive behind suicide bombings until Raoul Djukanovic spent a whole day educating him. It was like pulling teeth, but he got there in the end.
Now he wants us to believe Islamofascism is progressive. Okay, lenny! Anything you say pal!
Mike - Show me where I ever supported the Taliban.
Judging the West by the same standards as other states means exactly that and nothing more: it doesn't mean to say that liberal democracy is the same as reactionary despotism.
And what does it mean to say that 'Judeofascism' is morally superior to 'Islamofascism' because the former religion is usually associated with race, (although it is not a race)?
" lenin is the same chump who didn't even understand the Islamofascist ideological drive behind suicide bombings until Raoul Djukanovic spent a whole day educating him. It was like pulling teeth, but he got there in the end."
Actually, I have never denied that ideology is an important factor in suicide bombings. My insistence has been on the primacy of the occupation in driving suicide attacks against Israel. No occupation, no suicide attacks. Simple as that.
"Now he wants us to believe Islamofascism is progressive. Okay, lenny! Anything you say pal!"
Again, you don't bother to read what I say, instead larding on clumsy sarcasm like a French waiter. Islamism can be progressive, reactionary and revolutionary. It is a question of how the Quran and the Prophetic Tradition are interpreted by its adherents. I didn't say that 'Islamofascism' is progressive. You seem to have great difficulty absorbing the meaning of what you claim to be commenting on.
Ok, the MUK is Leftist. The Egyptians, I don't know. I have heard of an Iranian. The Afghans, if you would like to know, started getting slaughtered by these reactionary freaks at the universities in the 60's. And it went on and on all thru the 70's. The first Afghan Left regimes were very nice. Forget the Western propaganda. And, even after the Soviet invasion, there was still huge support for the regime amongst the classes above, including all-female fronts. Ok, they allied with Soviet power. But, you realize that they were killed for being Leftists, not really for supporting the Soviets. And in the Afghan resistance, the Islamists slaughtered the Left all through the war, with CIA help and money and guns. Face it, Lenin, the Islamist cavemen would have attacked *any* Left regime, whether Soviet-allied or not. And the initial progressive regimes in mid 70's were where the Islamist revolt started.
All of which, by the way Mike, is my way of pointing out what an absolute and complete pillock you are.
The revolt got so strong that a stupid government called in the Soviets. The counterrev was going for years before the Soviets even showed up.
Isn't all this progressive Islamist stuff just kinda dreamy? The only significant Islamism we ever see is socially reactionary. And what of the religion itself - that urges humans to deny enjoyment of the present life in order to enjoy some future life that may not even exist - isn't that whole notion - save your fun for the afterlife - profoundly reactionary right there?
"But, you realize that they were killed for being Leftists, not really for supporting the Soviets."
Look, I have no hesitation in denouncing the slaughter of leftists by Islamists wherever it happens but a) the above is simply untrue, the major phase of combat was directed precisely at the Soviet occupation and b) stop pretending the Soviet regime enjoyed comfortable support. The communists enjoyed only limited support in the capital and some outliers.
Actually, I have never denied that ideology is an important factor in suicide bombings.
Okay, lenin. I believe you. It didn't take a whole day to educate you on this point. That certainty did not happen.
Islamism can be progressive, reactionary and revolutionary.
You mean in the same Nazism can be all these things? A great lefitst point there lenin.
"Isn't all this progressive Islamist stuff just kinda dreamy?"
Only if you ignore the examples I gave. Look, play the moral hectoring game if you wish, but it is deliberate purblindness to claim that Islamism can only be this or that. Tariq Islam, recall, a liberal Islamist who supported the European Social Forum, has been abused and slandered left, right and centre precisely because some Orientalist twits insisted that Islamism could only be anti-American, reactionary, pro-suicide bombing etc. It ain't so.
"You mean in the same Nazism can be all these things? A great lefitst point there lenin."
You aren't even making sense, you dopy fucker, and I'm not impressed by your attempt to rewrite history. Get out of it!
I agree that "totalitarianism" is a slippery concept and I think you're right that it tends to be used in a manner designed to cut off any further discussion.
I also agree that all religions have a totalitarian impulse: in my honours dissertation (not available in any bookshops, good or bad) that the Church of Scotland in the 17th Cent. was essentially a proto-totalitarian organisation. The politcal model was drawn largely from the Old Testament and in that sense it is appropriate to talk about "Judeo-fascism" or "Judeo-totalitarianism" given that the Calvinists and Judaism share the same book.
Cont...
You've raised a very interesting question which, unfortunately, can't be easily discussed rationally lest one is accused of "anti-semitism" or "Islamo-phobia". I would argue that the different doctrines of the various religions have an impact on how they express themselves politically. It's outside the scope of this style of commenting but I'd argue that strands of religion that lays a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of god (these tend to be predestinarian) tend to be more theocratic. Islam, in its current form, has this but so did Calvinism. We should be able to make this observation without being accused of racism...
"And the anti-colonialism of the Islamists in the case of Palestine is predicated more on yucky anti-Semitism than anything else, IMHO."
That would explain why Israel started funding Hamas etc.
Yeh, Lenin, realpolitik is a funny game eh? I am sorry, I have been around Arabist circles for some time, and I have known high-ranking members of the PLO. I've been watching Hamas for years. And there is much anti-Semitism in the Arab World, especially in Palestine. It disgusted me, but as a revolutionary, the Pallies need to fight. I now support the PFLP because they are the least anti-Semitic Palestinian armed faction. I'm sorry, I've hung around these ppl a lot, I know what they are like.
You mentioned Weber in a different context. I was wondering if you've come across any of his sociology of religion? He had a very interesting idea that quietism, inner-worldy asceticism, or theocracy were the three ways in which salvation religions can adress themselves to the fact that the world is evil. Which they choose depends on historical circumstances and has nothing to do with race or really that much to do with culture. The Church of Scotland, for instance, went for the inner-worldly asceticism when its theocratic power began to crumble...
I agree, and I would add that it still matters how one interprets Calvinism, Islam, Hassidism etc.
On facing accusations of racism - well, as you can see, they already abound, usually from racist twits. However, I think it is a question of how one expresses the point; this has to reflect an awareness at least that formal neutrality toward all religions in insufficient; that we recognise the main gripes of the European far right, for instance, are their problems with Jews and Muslims.
Never come across Weber's sociology of religion, although I'd be interested. Suggest any texts?
And what does it mean to say that 'Judeofascism' is morally superior to 'Islamofascism' because the former religion is usually associated with race, (although it is not a race)?
Sorry, I part with Marx there. They are clearly an ethnic group, a tribe, what have you. And Islam was a step up from Judaism because it was a non-tribally, or non-racially based religion. (Classical) Judaism is really the nadir, I am sorry. That's got to be one of the most primitive forms of ethnoreligious barbarity around. I think we should grant Islam that progressive feature - that Islam totally transcended race in Mohammed's vision.
"And there is much anti-Semitism in the Arab World, especially in Palestine. It disgusted me, but as a revolutionary, the Pallies need to fight."
I have no doubt of that, and I don't doubt that Hamas is riddled with anti-Semitism and so on. However, you aren't really addressing my point. You have myopically bored in on some points which support your general prejudices about Islamism, but if you're trying to answer or refute my argument, then you need to show how my examples don't stand up. As you have acknowledged that they do, we can move on. I accept your diagnosis of the specific examples you adduce, I just don't think you can generalise as readily as you do.
Islamism can be - and has been - politically reactionary, liberal, and leftist.
The one word I couldn't agree with here is "liberal". I think it's a common mistake that I've seen people make, again, vis-a-vis the Church of Scotland. Historically, it has been a force for republicanism, equality (including between the sexes) and it was and is impressively democratic. However, one thing it has never been is liberal - and no religion ever is. A piece of research conducted by a couple of politics lecturers at Glasgow Uni showed that religion tends to make an individual significantly less liberal and the interesting thing was that what religion was adhered to was largely irrelevant.
"Sorry, I part with Marx there. They are clearly an ethnic group, a tribe, what have you..."
No, I don't accept that. Anyone can convert to Judaism, and needn't necessarily be of the correct ethnic background. The fact that some people are Jewish by descent and not conviction suggests that there is an ethnic element, but I reject the idea that this amounts to the Jews being a 'race'. In fact, I don't accept the notion of race at all.
Never come across Weber's sociology of religion, although I'd be interested. Suggest any texts?
He has a section in "Economy and Society" entitled, helpfully, "the Sociology of Religion". This is also published separately - I would imagine your uni library would probably have several copies? I can't remember if the stuff in "The Protestant Ethic" repeats this or makes different observations - although I think you mentioned it before, so I assume you've read it. Sorry I can't remember any more, I wasn't exactly a student last week ;-)
Sorry for double post, bug in Haloscan. Shuggy, don't you think, Druidism, or Buddhism, or Zen Buddhism, can be liberal? I know precisely what you are getting at, but I think your brush is too broad.
Damn this discussion is getting down!
And I'm drinking wine here at 2 AM. Lenin, you like Italian Cabernet Veneto? Oh I forget, you like warm beer. :) Har. Do you cold Brits ever drink the vino, or is that too continental? :)
"The one word I couldn't agree with here is "liberal"."
I was thinking of Tariq Islam, but there are other examples. Again, I would stipulate that Islamism is not a determinate creed; there are many possible interpretations, hence many likely political forms. Usually, the Quran, Hadiths etc are leavened by traditions arising from non-Islamic sources.
How can we believe lenin on anything when it takes several intensive educational sessions for him to understand the basics on suicide bombings?
He also thinks Nazism and Islamofascism is progressive. What's with this chump?
Ah, Robert, your gusto is merely burning up alcoholic calories!!
I prefer Cabernet Sauvignon myself or a nice Australian red. I do hope you're enjoying yourself.
Mike, shut it!
The fact that some people are Jewish by descent and not conviction suggests that there is an ethnic element, but I reject the idea that this amounts to the Jews being a 'race'.
Yet another interesting idea. I was wondering if you'd ever been struck by the similarities between Judaism and Catholicism on this score? Both get most of their congregational growth from breeding rather than conversion - and I've often been struck by the way in which both Catholics and Jews express their religion by what they do rather, as most people suppose, by what they believe.
I know precisely what you are getting at, but I think your brush is too broad.
Yes, you're right; I should have specified that I'm talking primarily about monotheistic salvation religions. Apart from anything else, my knowledge of Hinduism, Bhuddism etc. is pretty limited...
You've obviously thought about and studied such issues more thoroughly than I have Shuggy. Can I find material on this at your blog?
Ahh but a Cabernet Veneto is merely the Cabarnet Sauvignon variety grown in the hills of Venice. :) Wow, you limeys got some style. And I thought the frogs had a monopoly on class over there, eh? ;)
Well, I'm not strictly a limey, but I accept that rimming with gratitude.
Can I find material on this at your blog?
Not as yet, I'm afraid. I was intending to gather these sorts of ramblings and pull them together in a more coherent form in due course.
Oh Mike, the irony, the irony...
I see Hayward has really lost the plot too. Or at least his complete inability to look beyond the newspaper version of history. Well done old bean!
Should read "Or at least has exposed his complete inability..."
lenny, I presume you mean Tariq Ramadan? On Islamic leftism, has anyone read Ali Shari'ati (excuse transliteration) - radical shi'ite theologian? Interesting stuff.
I do; I was confusing him with a friend of mine. Apologies.
'The communists enjoyed only limited support in the capital and some outliers.'
ie, in the major working class areas, and also the most secular areas. Tells you something huh? I don't want to sound like one of the right-wing nuts that hangs around here by bashing the SWP, but they did have a pretty crummy position on the Afghan war - support for the mujahedin who destroyed Kabul and paved the way for the Taliban and US invasion once the SU fell.
Nah, opposing Soviet aggression was the right thing to do. It doesn't mean throwing uncritical support behind the mujahiden, but they were quite right to fight the occupiers.
You dont bring socialism to people at the end of a tank cannon. The decision by the Communists to impose their policies through force both necessitated their dependancy on the USSR and ensured a popular reaction which the Islamists and the USA took advantage of. What is absent from the posts on the Afghan communists is any anaylsis of the state capitalist regime they created in imitation of the USSR.
China
Really glad you've heard of Ali Shari'ati. He is indeed a fascinating thinker - I remember family friends being devastated when he died in 1977 (probably killed by SAVAK).
His ijtihad (interpretation) of Islam draws on the tradition of the great Shia intellectuals of the 10th century, who based their innovations on a reworking of Aristotle's system.
Shari'ati was, in effect, trying to deploy Marxist concepts (at least in a sociological sense) in a similar way.
Met one of his co-thinkers about 10 years ago who said Shari'ati was familiar with Sultan Galiev and at least some of the experience of the Bolsheviks in the southern Islamic republics.
And there was a very good biography in English published a couple of years ago.
James: "The decision by the Communists to impose their policies through force both necessitated their dependancy on the USSR and ensured a popular reaction which the Islamists and the USA took advantage of. What is absent from the posts on the Afghan communists is any anaylsis of the state capitalist regime they created in imitation of the USSR."
Read up a bit before making a ninny of yourself. The PDPA was not "communist", but a secular petty bourgeois nationalist formation which sought some minimal reforms, e.g. literacy education for young girls in the countryside and reducing the 'bride-price'. The CIA's extensive operations in Afghanistan predated the Soviet intervention by two years.
As to your 'state capitalism' twaddle, Brezhnev's policy (aimed at conciliating the U.S. imperialists) was AGAINST collectivizing the hopelessly backwards Afghan economy or extending the tremendous gains of the Central Asian Soviet Republics to Afhganistan.
'The PDPA was not "communist", but a secular petty bourgeois nationalist formation'
Like everyone else on this thread, i'm using the description of 'communist' to refer to a political group which identified itself with the USSR, as opposed to a commitment workers power from below.
'The CIA's extensive operations in Afghanistan predated the Soviet intervention by two years'
Ive pointed out as much to right-wing posters in the past. I didn't mention the CIA, i referred to the popular opposition from Afghan workers and peasants. By the early 1980s this included opposition in the cities, and from women. The Communists' decision to use military force alone to destory this opposition sealed their dependancy on the military might of the USSR.
(cont)
''state capitalism' twaddle'
State capitalism can co-exist with private ownership of aspects of the economy. The term was after all first used in reference to the NEP. By the 70s the USSR had cut deals with western corporations for the sale of oil and gas, just as Vietnam, China and Cuba have done. I used the term to describe a regime in which any elements of democracy and workers' control have been replaced by a military/beaurocratic ruling class drawn from the party.
lENNY: "No, the Islamists are not our allies; yes, they can be left-wing as well as right-wing. No, one does not support those who attack the left; yes, the Islamists can be anti-imperialist."
Clear as mud. Lenny's total confusion only reflects the SWP's conflicting opportunist appetites.
He starts by accepting the obscene framework of the Blairites/neocons that U.S. imperialism, not Marxism, is the rightful heir of Enlightentment rationalism and therefore opposes the latter(!). But his scorn for the Enlightenment not only leaves him sharing the sheets with political islam and the catholic church... but also in a block with the pro-imperialist counterrevolutionary forces in Poland and Afhganistan.
For the SWP cretins, stalinism (and only stalinism) was "counterrevolutionary through and through and to the core"; Imperialism, therefore, including it's vilest and most reactionary racist, woman-hating friends and allies, were all embraced by the SWP as at least somewhat 'progressive' - but only as long as they were 100% anti-soviet...
(Notice how he never gets around to addressing the central issue of womens' oppression.)
I'm not going to engage with that drivel, but I would like to point out how insufficient Enlightenment rationalism is; how inadequate it is to the situation. What Marxism represents is a systematic challenge to the Enlightenment, a revolutionising of it, and a subversion of the totalising apparatus of bourgeois liberalism.
You seem to have rattled your resident Seventh Day Adventist, Lenin.
LENNY: "but I would like to point out how insufficient Enlightenment rationalism is; how inadequate it is to the situation."
And your point is...?
What Marxist ever argued that Enlightenment rationalism was "sufficient"?
(Notice how he never gets around to addressing the central issue of womens' oppression.)
Once again, Lenny performs another one of his little 'surgeries' on Marxism, gutting it of its Enlightenment rationalist heritage; just as he earlier snipped out that nasty 'dialectical materialism' bit and that 'dictatorship of the proletariat' thingy. (The revolutionary "capacity of the working class" element he apparently ditched long ago.)
"What Marxist ever argued that Enlightenment rationalism was "sufficient"?"
Precisely my point RC.
Incidentally, I'm for the dictoprol, but not diamat.
As for the crucial issue of women's oppression, what would you like me to say about it? What do you think I'm missing? Perhaps I should discuss the oppression of women in the old USSR? Is that what you're getting at?
LENNY: "Perhaps I should discuss the oppression of women in the old USSR?"
Exactly, start with a comparison of the situation of women in the muslim Soviet Central Asian republics during the 1970s and the condition of their ethnic sisters in Afghanistan.
Or, if you prefer, the condition of women in the USSR in the 1970s to their condition since Yeltsin/Bush counterrevolution which the SWP cheered on in 1991-2.
Oh better yet, let's compare the condition of women in Afghanistan before the US invasion and after.
What 'change' was that, Lenny? Been watching too much CNN again?
"Millions of women and girls have returned to work and school since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001. Equality before the law is embedded in a new constitution, and some women have abandoned the head-to-toe public veiling that was mandatory under the tough Islamist regime. Seats are also reserved for women in the two-chamber parliament to be installed by elections this year."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
afghan...1415291,00.html
It's Spartacist Sunday School...
(Shaking tambourine, singing lustily)
"Trotsky wants me for a sunbeam, To shine for Him each day, In every way to try to please Him, At home, at school, at play..."
Hey, RC, are you in the same bunch with the fixation on Trotsky's deathmask? Crazy, crazy stuff.
(You wouldn't know working class democracy if it came and bit you on the bum, really, would you?)
Kevin, I didn't know that about the biography, thank you. I remember reading a brief extract of his stuff many years ago which was (iirc) a reading of Genesis which interpreted it as about the iniquities of private property. I was left agape at the dialectical virtuosity and obvious revolutionary vision.
China
I haven't got your email. But contact me if you want a loan of book. I've also got a lot of other material on the the interface between radicalised Shia clergy and the left in post-WWII Iran. If I can dig it up, there's an old essay on Shari'ati and the Movement of God-worshipping Socialists, who deserve to be remembered not least because the name itself sends today's Wilsonian imperialists apoplectic (or it would do if they weren't so ignorant as to have never heard of it).
"Equality before the law is embedded in a new constitution...blah blah blah"
So Lenny believes U.S./British imperialism liberates women... the source for his touching faith? a press release from the occupation forces in Kabul regurgitated by the (blairite) Guardian. :-)
Now we're getting somewhere.
Oops. I guess there's really no contradiction, since Lenny also doesn't believe that religion oppresses women in the first place. So the women of Afghanistan were always free to begin with... (except when the nasty Red Army was there opposing their freedom to have acid splashed in their faces for not wearing the veil...)
LENNY: "As for the crucial issue of women's oppression, what would you like me to say about it? "
Yeah, notice this question is so "crucial" to lenny that it didn't rate a single mention in his entire post on the "slippery topic of Islamism" (sic).
"The war was over. Japan had no fuel to move its ships to hiding places, let alone attack anywhere."
This is not rrue at all. As a stareting point, you might to consider AJP Taylor's "The Origins of the Second World War" and William Shirer's "The Rise of Fall of the Third Reich". I can cite probably 20 other sources if you wish. It is a completely unsupported fallacy that Japan was on the verge of surrending before the first bomb was dropped.
It is estimated by almost every WWII historians that in excess of 1 million net lives were saved by dropping the nukes, and that without the bombs the Japanese military could have prolonged the war by 6-12 months, forcing an amphibious landing of Japan's main island. They had a full contingency plan developed for such a scenario, including a plan for guerilla warfare following an invasion.
Sorry Lenin, but you seem to have a VERY limited knowledge of WWII history.
Here is what the US Strategic Bombing Survey wrote:
“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered.
On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: “Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.” Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: “Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to — and did — relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to conclusion.”
If only Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender — that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place — the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
The bomb
The bombs were dropped anyway, the Emperor remained in place, and 150,000 people died in vain.
Hayward
This argument was rehearsed and resolved between 1995 and 1998 in the wake of the row initiated by officially sanctioned veterans groups over the Smithsonion exhibit of the Enola Gay, which was eventually cancelled.
I know this is terribly old fashioned, but the book Hiroshima's Shadow (1998) contains a wealth of material that had not been published up to that point. It demonstrated not only that Japan was on the point of surrender, but that the US government knew it was.
Most damning was the Forrestal diary showing just how much US military intelligence knew about the imminent collapse.
It really won't do to cite AJP Taylor while ignoring scholarship over the last two decades.
Incidentally, there is a striking continuity of senior US military personnel between August 1945 and the point during the Korean War when they gave serious consideration dropping nuclear weapons on Korea to creat a radioactive "necklace" cutting it off off from from China.
Right, and that was just the moment SWP founder Tony Cliff (deeply 'embedded' in the then-ruling Labour Party), declared himself 'neutral' on the question of defending North Korea and China.
Hiroshima;'s Shadow, while a good book, certainly does not rise to the level of analysis of other, more complete histories of WWII.
It is another fallacy to claim that before the first bomb was dropped the Japanese were willing to surrender if only the Emperor could remain in place. The Japanese also demanded that if they did surrender they be allowed to control large protions of Manchuria. It's not even a debateable fact. The Japanese would not surrender unless they were allowed to keep some of their territorial gains. This was unacceptable to the US, and rightly so.
It isn't realistic to suggest that Hiroshima'a Shadow, and the claims within it, can displace 50 years of scholarly work on the subject. Silly.
So 150,000 people had to die to advance US power in the Pacific. That is what some would describe as a Nazi morality.
Hayward
Hiroshima's Shadow is not a history of the Second World War. It is an unrefuted symposium in reponse to an Historikerstreit in the US 10 years ago.
The primary documents it contains were simply unavailable to Taylor. Whether he would have made best use of them is another issue.
BTW Since you say "Hiroshima's Shadow, while a good book...", I assume you have actually read it and not just the various howls from the Abu Ghraib merchants that followed. I have no idea whether those are available on line, but the book is well worth getting from the library... and reading.
Hayward
You have read the book under discussion, haven't you?
"Totalitarianism is a shifting, polysemous notion... It allows clueless, barbie-doll 'leftist' commentators to resort to moral absolutism, avoid political complexity and assert their own monopoly on the moral high ground because they oppose what they designate as 'totalitarian'."
And don't forget, as seen by these would-be opponents of "totalitarianism" the unstated occupant of this "moral high ground" is invariably "Western democracy" (i.e. imperialism).
Hey, ...this isn't a bad summary of the SWP's role vis a vis British imperialism in its unconditional hatred of the USSR and other states built, with all their contradictions and deformities, on the overthrow of capitalist property relations. Is that who you had in mind Lenny?
Hey I like you Red Cloud. :) I am not a Trot and I never knew what they were about. Now I am starting to get the picture. Fanaticism comes to mind. They remind me of Maoists but in a totally different way - same blind subservience to ideology. My feelings on the various Afghan Leftist and Communist regimes mirror yours. I understand that even the Soviet-supported regime continued to have mass support amongst especially women, urban workers, students etc and some ethnic formations (Tajiks) through the 80's. They even had several women's brigades numbering I think 10-15,000. And in the Communist Army, there was a remarkable breakdown in the centuries-old social reactionary climate. Enforced equality between men and women was attempted, and there was a lot of sleeping around between males and females, without much guilt or anything. Many were still nominal Muslims.
Robert, I find it hard to square your generally accurate picture of the PDPA regime with your opposition to the Red Army going in. Crushing the CIA-backed landlords and mullahs and integrating the regions of Afghanistan with the neighboring Soviet republics economically was the only hope for material progress... In a country where islamic clergy outnumbered the tiny proletariat 2-to-1, the Red Army intervention provided the only conceivable possibility for basic modernization and liberating women.
"Fanaticism... blind subservience to ideology."
I guess I should be flattered. Does that mean having opinions, and seeking to pursue a consistently revolutionary position? As to "subservience", that's an equally poor term to describe Trotskyists that I know.
"What does a non-masochist do in the face of such brutality but resist, calling to hand whatever ideological and organisational resources are available?"
You've struck my chord there, thanks lenin.
Ekk
Islamism is the "Religious Right" of the Muslim world. It is faith-based and, when rigorously applied, reactionary.
In mild forms, the tenets of religion have frequently proved useful as a hedge against excessive power of the State (Chile).
No comment Red Cloud, on the Red Army invasion. I guess I will go neutral on that. My comments on Trotskites, well, from your description, they sound nuts. I understand your pro-Russian invasion argument totally, but I am not sure I agree. The women in the RAWA fought against the Soviets too. All it did was spark nationalist armed reaction. I know the stories I read about the women's brigades fighting in the 80's, the stories were really moving - those women were really fighting for something liberating and against something awful.
"Fanaticism... blind subservience to ideology."
I guess I should be flattered. Does that mean having opinions, and seeking to pursue a consistently revolutionary position? As to "subservience", that's an equally poor term to describe Trotskyists that I know.
I am not following you at all here. You are a Trot? You've been bashing them this whole comment thread. Or you just bash the SWP? Spill, I am lost.
Josh, I agree with you totally. However, I am unusual in Leftists in that I am a Christian. Supporter of Liberation Theology, esp FARC and ELN in Colombia, FMLN in El Salvadaor, Sandinistas, NPA in Philippines, and the whole Liberation Theology strain, esp coming out of Latin America in recent years. However, I do wonderful if there is something just innately reactionary about Islam in some ways, if Islam can ever be progressive. On the Afghan Communist home pages they say similar things. And you know, the most socially reactionary parts of the world nowadays are the Islamist parts, and also the part of the world the Left has found it hardest to penetrate. I think Islam "reactionaryizes" entire societies, and it makes it hard for a lot progressive change to occur. Which is why the Arab Left never got much off the ground.
"I am not following you at all here. You are a Trot?"
Robert. Sorry, I started this by misreading your earlier post. I am a communist and supporter of Trotskyism (see www.icl-fi.org), which has nothing to do with the program being pushed here by Lenny and his colleagues. Trotskyism stands/stood for the unconditional military defense of the USSR and similar states against imperialism, even as we fight for workers political revolution to overthrow the parasitic bureaucracies that deformed those societies from within.
The idea of making common cause with imperialism and the bourgeoisie against workers states on 'human rights' (or any other issue) is inconceivable from a communist perspective. We know who the enemy is.
The SWP, as their paper makes abundantly clear, is nothing but a 'left' political satellite of the Labour Party, and anti-communist in its very DNA.
Hope this helps.
Robert Lindsay - you've seen Life of Brian, right? Popular Front of Judea/Judean Popular Front, and all that? Mindless bores like Red Cloud are largely responsible for the stereotype. There's more hope of engaging usefully with planks of wood than similar cultists.
Fortunately, between the anticapitalist and antiwar movements, they are a dying breed: they tend to rise to anything approaching prominence in conditions when alternative organisations on the Left have decayed and withered.
And, for the record: I'm a member of the SWP and therefore a "Trot". I hope and trust that what the SWP does is a thousands miles from Red Cloud's bullshit and something like building an organisation of working-class revolution. Any successful Left organisation is not defined by its relationship to other small groups, but by its relationship to everything but. Either you can relate to broad masses of people, or you are consigned to permanent irrelevance.
"Any successful Left organisation is not defined by its relationship to other small groups, but by its relationship to everything but."
Any communist organization worth its salt is defined by its *opposition* to the bourgeoisie in its own country. SWP's unbroken record of *unity* with their own imperialist ruling class against the USSR and similar states (or today China, Cuba, Vietnam, N. Korea) and their long history of support for capitalist restorationist forces, makes them social democratic reformists, not Trotskyists.
Throughout the 1980s "Cold War II" the SWPites were literally howling for the blood of Red Army soldiers in Afghanistan; their paper "Socialist Worker" was attacking the Thatcher government from the right(no mean feat!) for being "too soft" on the Soviets.
Rutting with the Labourites in anti-communist heat over "poor little Afghanistan" and Polish Solidarnosc, they couldn't have cared less about how women would fare under the heel of religious bigots whose victory they were cheering for (hence the deafening silence from Lenny on the woman question.)
Robert, I understand you are not a Marxist, but aren't the essentials of christianity (or any other religion) in conflict with the aims of womens emancipation?
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Splitters!
(Excellent stuff.)
Hello there. Ok, thx for setting me straight on what Trotskism is really all about. And as far the SWP, well, that just strikes me as nuts. When I spoke of fanaticism and blind subservience to ideology, I was speaking of your description of the SWP. I seriously wondered about them when I heard that their leader Tony Cliff refused to oppose the Zionist state of Israel around 1967. I think they did take a rather critical stand on Israel, though, and lost lots of members consequently. The latest Tony Cliff statement I read on Israel made me want to vomit. He's basically a Peace Now Zionist! Pah! Did this have something to do with his being Jewish, I forget now? Israel is kind of an achilles heel for a lot of Jewish Leftists, you know. As far as the SWP, well, I am laughing. As fanatical as the Shining Path, but totally harmless cuz they don't have guns. They are inconsequential and they make me laugh. :) They'll never get into power anyway, so no worries.
Anyway, despite my chuckles at the SWP, I still love Lenny and his blog and I like Meaders' blog too. Like I said, they'll never get into power, so nothing to worry about. :) Anyway, I like all my brothers on the Left. You are probably correct in saying I am not a Marxist, but I did strongly support the Sandinista project and I my favorite regime now is Chavez Venezuela. I strongly supported the URNG and FMLN in Central America. I also support the FARC and ELN in Colombia because that is an extreme case. I support NPA in Philippines on extreme case grounds and the Nepalese revolutionaries because I like their project. I will support a Marxist revolution in "extreme cases" - in Colombia, Philippines, Nepal, Indonesia and probably some other places, there is no democratic way to implement a Leftist project, because of the Right's terror state and the fact that any reformist state will be overthrown by a coup. I
In those cases, sadly, the oligarchy must be destroyed and their army must be overthrown. You really have a choice between Right and Left dictatorships in these cases, so I pick the Left. Really I prefer a full democracy like what Chavez is trying to do, with the usual problems. Or the Sandinista and FMLN roles in Nicaragua and El Salvador, working within the system. And let me add Haiti to the cases of ruling classes that need destruction. :( As an American, social democracy sounds like a pretty neat idea, considering we've never ever had one here! I'm a member of the Green Party and the Communist Party USA. I got thrown out of the local CPUSA cell though for supporting capitalism, not being a revolutionary and being a social democrat. Most everyone else thinks I'm a fanatical Leftist. The CPUSA now supports the Chinese economic model and full democracy in socialist states, FWIW. A friend recently called me a Chomskyian Left reformist. Anyway....
Red Cloud, I do not think that Christianity per se oppresses women at all. Sure, the Right fundamentalist types do. But those states that have liberated women the most are states that have a base Christian population, or Christian heritage - in Europe, for instance. I guess it depends on how you interpret it. I'm as secular as they come, I like the idea of sex orgies, I'm addicted to young women, I used to throw wild parties, ran around Hollywood niteclubs for years, and sold dope for years. All of which, I feel, is compatible with Christianity. :) The best kinds of Christianity are Catholicism and the Orthodox, where it is more an identity and a personal thing than a way of life. In Catholicism, you even get to sin all you like, as long as you go to confession! The Liberation Theology folks were real progressive on women's rights. And no, I don't think Goddess Worship (that's a religion, no?) harms women.
Red Cloud, I think the Left has really screwed up in attacking religion. There are all sorts of Liberation Theology Leftists running around Latin America now and in Cuba, there is a movement calling itself Christian Marxism. People are religious, we have to deal with that. The Left either ends its hostility towards religion, or is marginalized. And the Iraqi Communist Party - Cadre recently ended its official atheism and decided that the party believes in God, and says that belief is based on science (Marxism is supposed to be scientific). You familiar with Camillo Torres, founder of the ELN, the Catholic priest running around with a machine gun? The NPA, FMLN, URNG and ELN all had active priests and many Catholic lay workers in their (armed) ranks. Jesus was a revolutionary! :)
Robert - I wish I knew what you were talking about. a. Tony Cliff is dead and has been for some time b. Cliff always vociferously opposed Zionism, most certainly in 1967, it being one of his distinguishing political features c. how can you be a Shining Path "Peace Now Zionist", anyway? "Fanatical" and "too soft"? It doesn't make the remotest bit of sense.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk which may well sort out a few confusions.
Actually, reading through it again - the IS/SWP gained members, very much so, after 1967 - it was an unprecedented period of growth for the organisation. Really, where on earth are you getting all this from?
"The latest Tony Cliff statement I read on Israel made me want to vomit. He's basically a Peace Now Zionist! Pah! Did this have something to do with his being Jewish, I forget now? Israel is kind of an achilles heel for a lot of Jewish Leftists, you know."
Meaders, I don't think you get it. Robert is making it clear enough above that his main problem with the late Tony Cliff is not the latter's politics, but the fact that he was a Jew.
The neocons love to slanders all opposition to zionism as a camouflage for plain old hatred of Jews.
In those few cases where this is actually true (and I think this is one of them), it is necessary to call the thing by its right name.
Anti-Semitic comment deleted.
Comment deleted.
Got it, Meaders. Shining Path refers to the fanatacism as I see it, of the SWP, and frankly of Trotskyism in general! It has all the characteristics of a Left sect. Sendero were Maoists and Trotskyites are not, but there is a similarity to me. That "sect" feel. :) Peace Now Zionist? I don't know. Last SWP document I saw seemed to be for the 2-state solution? I can't find anything at their website. SWP position on Israel anyone? Did not know Cliff was dead, thx. And from the Cohn piece, Cliff (and the SWP?) always opposed Zionism. Yeh, fanatical in the "sect" sense, and yeh, "too soft" on Afghan mujahedin reactionaries and the Axis. Reading.. well, Healyism sounds pretty cool LOL. John Rose, "Israel, the Highjack State" LOL, oh yah I read that and it's great. Ralph Shoenman, "Hidden History of Zionism" oh yah. I am so sorry, Cliff was never a Zionist, it is the Grantist faction I confused him with that are the "Peace Now Zionists". Can I remove comments?
I don't usually post on this blog but I should just like to register my astonishment that no one has challenged RL's outburst of jew hatred.
And, while my own personal view is that Tony Cliff was just plain wrong about most things, one thing that he could not be accused of is Zionism.
I haven't been watching this comments thread.
Robert, those comments are going to be deleted. 1,000 flames you will not receive.
Lenny: "I haven't been watching this comments thread."
Not watching? I think anti-Semitism, like women's oppression, and gay rights is another one of those 'blind spots' produced by the SWP's opportunist adaptation toward reactionary political Islam.
I hasten to add here that political Islam is no different for the SWP than the catholic church has been, or all kinds of other reactionary piggery that they have coddled over the years in the name of anti-communist "democracy"... (see above).
How can it be a blind spot if I wasn't reading the thread?
RC - I agree with your assesment. I was hoping Lindsay might correct himself; evidently not.
RedClod:
"I hasten to add here that political Islam is no different for the SWP than the catholic church has been..."
No different? So, they are identical are they?
Notice how you keep having to use the law of identity to spout more of your class hatred, RedDope?
[Pity you keep aiming it at the *wrong* class; lenin is on *our* side you dolt. You really must stop spraying all over the place, RedPiss, like an incontinent old drunk. But perhaps that is what you are....]
Commenting by HaloScan
