[A-List] Whither or Wither Europe?

[Tony B.]

Charles,

You say the term 'ultra-left is "synonymous with" Lenin's 'left communism'

Well, the term is either taken from the Lenist lexicon or it isn't. Being 
'synonymous' by definition is an interpretational extension of a term. So 
which is it? Was the term used by Lenin or not?

In any case, I was (rightly or wrongly according to your assumed definition) 
taking it to me 'further or far' left...My real point, however, was to take 
to task your defense of Barack Obama. Defending the indefensible is, I 
hazard, a delusional stance.

Thus...Your cavilling over whether Obama is an 'overt' vs a 'covert' 
imperialist is just that....cavilling. [In any case, it is 'patent', it is 
clear, it is transparent to, I suspect most on this list, that Obama *is* an 
imperilist. Period.]

 ..But somehow I'm being delusional by calling Obama an "imperialist"? 
You're kidding me right? You're on an anti-imperialist list service and your 
arguing that Obama is *not* an imperialist!? Or that he's 'only been in 
office for so-and-so months'...and he hasn't had time to change things? 
Really? Well, let's take a very short look at what he has changed:

Apart from having entrenched much of Bush's domestic shredding of the 
Constitution, i.e. confirming illegal wire tapping and electronic 
eavesdropping, reaffirming the various Terror Acts, reaffirming the 
legitimacy of 'extraordinary renditions', maintained the imperialist embargo 
against Cuba etc...

..apart from all that...he's established 7 new bases in Colombia; 
resurrected the 4th Fleet for Latin America; stepped up destabilization 
campaigns against Venezuela; presided over a coup in Honduras; established , 
under the guise of disaster relief, 20,000 troops in Haiti; launched new 
sanctions against Iran; made the most outrageous imperial speech imaginable 
whilst accepting the Nobel Peace Prize; made  major new US weapons transfers 
to Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and India; put US Patriot missiles 
in Poland; an early missile warning system in the Czech Republic; US troops 
and weapons in Georgia, the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Central Asia; given 
US-made Aegis missiles to Taiwan; launched new US naval deployments in the 
Black Sea; has had new US weapons systems situated in Japan, the 
Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Australia; boosted the naval 
deployments in the Persian Gulf {and agreeing to Israeli submarines (bearing 
nuclear weapons) targeting Iran]; and a host of new US air and ship-based 
anti-ballistic missile systems located on US fleets throughout the 
Mediterranean, the Sea of Japan, the Taiwan St. and the South China Sea. 
He's ramped up war games and drills throughout the Far East, has provoked 
China by sending the USS George Washington within 200 miles of Beijing, has 
increased US troops in Afghanistan to over 100,000, has initiated 
hostilities across the border in Pakistan....*and* as far as Iraq is 
concerned...

...Iraq is *still occupied* by over 50,000 US troops (rebranded as 
'stabilization' troops rather than 'combat troops'..and if you believe that 
they're not combat troops then I've got a bridge to sell ya), 100,000 
mercenaries and all occupying 94 military bases. The Green Zone in Baghdad 
is three times the size of the Vatican City....In short, Emperor Obama has 
no intention of vacating Iraq..not now..not ever..well, not as long as 
American power holds out. And the fact that you've bought into this line 
that the States has now 'left' Iraq and 'fulfilled' the promise to 
decolonize the place tells me everything I need to know about where you 
stand on these issues

So yes, Charles, given that you are still defending Obama I'd say you are 
very much delusional.

And my point in so charging you is not just to name call, but to challenge 
your thesis that by supporting Obama we are somehow doing a good thing...or 
at least, a 'least evil thing'. And what I meant by the alternative being 
"we" [and, yes, Charles, I was entirely aware of my ironical usage in 
reference to your reference to an executive figure..which I then proceeded 
to explain..and you to ignore and misinterpret]..what I meant was precisely 
to challenge the above thesis. In short, the best we can do is to hold 
Obama's feet to the fire...*most certainly* not to give him even more free 
reign by supporting him politically. Free reign to do what? What has he 
done? ...Thrown away the fight for real health care reform, for real 
financial reform..and is now paving the way for a war against Iran, a war 
which could destabilize the entire planet....I mean, where in this sorry 
spectacle do you find a policy worth supporting?

T.






Who's delusional here? You're defending him. He's a f***ing brutal 
imperialist who could well bring down Armageddon on our heads and you're 
defending him. Whatever....
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "c b" <cb31450 at gmail.com>
To: <a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 1:17 PM
Subject: [A-List] Whither or Wither Europe?


> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:28:42 -0400
> From: "Tony B." <tal1 at cogeco.ca>
> Subject: Re: [A-List]
> To: "The A-List" <a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <1070490923F64AF2BE76D6EAFE714547 at TonyPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>       reply-type=original
>
> "Another of the "thousands" of examples of
> exaggerated, slanderous anti-Obamaisms from the ultra-left.
>
> 'ultra-left'....hmm...That must be bad, right?  ..So there's a 'good' left
> and 'bad' left...and 'ultra-left' must be really bad.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: I didn't say good left and bad left. You did. I said "ultra-left"
> . There is a portion of the left that is taking a politically
> incorrect position on Obama, yes.   It is in the long term tradition
> of Leninism ,who coined "leftwing communism".
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> I'm afraid this manner of talking
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: This manner of talking - good, bad- is your manner of talking ,
> not mine. Go back and look at my post. I said "ultra-left", which is
> the Leninist manner of talking about these issues.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
>
> is to adopt the false dichotomies and
> definitional prescriptions/assumptions of the anti-democratic,
> authoritarian, imperialist ideologues..or should I say, the 'ultra-right'.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: No. I didn't use "good and bad" . You did. So it is you who have
> inserted "rightwing" usage , if anybody, by putting words in my mouth
> that I didn't use.
>
> I'm using Leninist usage, which is decidedly not false dichtomizing
> imperialist or rightwing in the least.  It is a left or Communist way
> of discussing this issue.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>
> This term, 'ultra-left' is, in other words, taken straight from the
> establishment lexicon...an official semiotics intent in positioning itself
> on the high terrain of ideological corrrectness and respectability.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: No the term "ultra-left" is basically synonymous with Lenin's
> "Leftwing Communism". So , it is taken from the revolutionary lexicon.
>
> I published the whole of Lenin's _ Leftwing Communism: an Infantile
> Disorder_ on this list a number of months ago, just for the purpose of
> demonstrating exactly what political lexicon this comes from
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> Now, perhaps it is valuable to critique the anti-democratic, 
> paternalistic,
> central authoritarian traditions of, say, the old Stalinist 'left'...fair
> enough. But I get a little queasy when I hear the term 'ultra-left' thrown
> about so facilely in the face of the modern left....a 'left' by the way
> which in the US is, by any non-American standards, hardly 'ultra', but is,
> instead, rather milquetoast.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: I didn't throw it around facilely. I put it on the list precisely;
> after having sent the whole pamphlet on the topic from Lenin.
>
> Furthermore, I think the ultra left that Lenin discussed probably was
> milquetoast, too. So, today's ultraleft might have that in common with
> the old "Leftwing Communist" Lenin discussed.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> "And who is your alternative to Obama ?"
>
> *We* are, i.e. the non-elite 'masses', the people.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> CB: No, I mean who do you propose that the masses elect as President
> of the US system, in 2012, instead of Obama ?  Because somebody is
> going to be elected President. The People aren't going to abolish the
> current US system and institute their direct rule - direct democracy
> of 300 million people - by 2012 or by this November.  To think or
> imply that they will is an ultra-left or "Leftwing Communist" notion.
>
>  Or who do you propose they elect to Congress in this coming November ?
>
> ^^^^
>
> That is, in a sense, you are right Charles.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: No, I'm just straight out correct, not just in one sense. In all
> senses, I'm correct.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> There is no executive / imperial
> alternative to Obama. And certainly the asendency of, say, an explicit
> exponent of the Christian Right into executive office could conceivably be
> worse. But really, this is mostly beside the point...the point being, that
> Obama is patently a dyed-in-the-wool imperialist.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB:  That's doesn't even correspond to the facts of his public
> presentation. He is not patently an imperialist. If anything he is
> covertly an imperialist.   And from the definition of
> "dyed-in-the-wool" he is "patently" _not_ a dyed-in-the-wool
> imperialist , either. This latter statement of yours is an example of
> a wildly exaggerated, I guess out of emotion or something,
> misrepresentation of Obama. Sort of a Lou Proyectism. It's ridiculous
> really.  Obama  is patently NOT "Firmly established  as an imperialist
> in "his beliefs or habits; deeply ingrained in the his nature.'  When
> leftists say things like that it is clear to me that they have just
> lost it in this analysis. If anything is obvious , patent, clear it is
> that Obama is _not_ a 'dyed-in-the-wool' imperialist.   If you said
> he's a sneaky, cunning , undercover imperialist, I could take you
> seriously. But when you get to claiming he's 'dyed-in-the-wool' , it
> is clear to me that you have lost it.
>
> Adjective
>
> dyed-in-the-wool (comparative more dyed-in-the-wool, superlative most
> dyed-in-the-wool)
>
>   1. (of textiles) Dyed before being formed into cloth.
>   2. (idiomatic, figuratively) Firmly established in a person's
> beliefs or habits; deeply ingrained in the nature of a person or
> thing.
>
>          Smith was a dyed-in-the-wool typist and never really got
> used to writing on computers.
>          John Major was described by his opponents as a
> dyed-in-the-wool Conservative.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> He is seeking US global
> hegemony with as much fervour as any US emperor of the recent past.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> CB:  Well, not with as much fervour as Bush, the most recent US
> emperor from the past. Obama just pulled the last combat troops out of
> Iraq. And don't try to tell me that Bush, McCain or Clinton would have
> done that. Bullshit . It is a distinct and important difference
> between Obama and them, which ultra-left assessments typically slur
> over, "conflate" as it's put these days.
>
> It's obviously false claims like this that substantially discredit the
> ultra-left.
>
> So, yes, Obama has done things that should be criticized. But when
> somebody starts saying there is no difference between Obama and Bush,
> Bush . even.Johnson...Truman I put them over here in a file called
> "ultra-left" and substantially discount their critique, because they
> are  caught up in Obama hating or something. I don't know the motive
> or the psychological  , like Lenin, but bottomline, their analysis is
> distorted
>
> For one thing , Obama has only been in for a year and 2/3. He hasn't
> in that short period of time acted in a way , done things,
> specifically with respect to war , etc. that would justify such a
> conclusion.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
>
> 'Get in
> to the real world'?...Well, when Obama & Co. attack Iran ..and send the
> world galloping towards Armageddon..
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: Of course, arch-importantly. Obama has _not_ attacked Iran. So,
> that is not in the real world , but in your imagination.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> .perhaps then we'll all be in the 'real
> world'.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: When it happens, it will be in the real world.  Until then, you
> are not in the real world in attributing it to Obama.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> The 'alternative', then, is for mass social struggle to hammer the
> elitist, militarist power base into less dangerous, and hopefully, more
> progressive shape. Continuing to defend imperialism, militarism and
> corporate capitalism under the auspices of defending a mythical, 
> progressive
> 'Obama' is hardly 'reality' based. It is simply delusional.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: So, far in this exchange, you are the one tending to the delusional.
>
> The politically correct approach is not to defend Obama because he is
> personally progressive. It is to assess the real world, non-delusional
> balance of class and political forces, the level of consciousness of
> the masses, whom you rely on so critically in your discussion. This
> must be done concretely and historically, considering their motion
> over the last 30 years, their motion in the election of Obama in
> relation to that history, the strength
>
>
> More later
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The 'real world', in any case, is not something that simply exists....the
> world is something that we create. This demand to simply 'get with the 
> real
> world'...the world 'as it is'...is merely a demand to let those in power
> continue to create the world in their image, i.e. unfettered by those in 
> the
> vast majority who seek to create a rather different world. In short, there
> is no 'real' world. There is merely the world we strive to create ..the
> world we fight for. Period. Any other description/prescription is sheer
> elitist, verbal mystification. A recipe, if you like, for quietism and
> political passivity.
>
> ...Finally, this is not about race, Charles...though certainly there are
> many racists in the US who are taking any opportunity to bash 
> Obama.,,,This
> is about class, this is about corporate, crony capitalism, about
> authoritarianism, about the continued dissolution of personal liberties,
> about militarism, about imperialism....about the accelerating
> destabilization of world security etc. If you can explain how Obama has
> moved in a progressive manner to counter any these grave socio-political
> currents, then please explain it to me.
>
> Tony
>
>