What's Left? - How the left lost its way.

[nomadologist]

So supporting liberal intervention makes Kamm a centrist? Or a centre rightist? And this is true for everyone, with any liberal intervention (Kosovo, etc)?

So you are saying that you can't support military intervention and be a leftist? So any supporting the Allies in WWII couldn't be a leftist? So one could be a nominal Marxist, like Makiya, and support intervention in Iraq (for which even you would surely be hard pushed to condemn him), and yet the one must cancel out the other? Even if you remain comitted to Marxism?

YES supporting intervention makes Kamm a centrist. YES it is true for anyone, even people who believed in the intervention in Kosovo. NO you can't support military "intervention" and be a leftist. Absolutely NOT.

What are you talking about? There are no "Marxists" anymore. There may be people who read Marx, and sympathize with his ideas, but there is no such thing as politically vital or relevant "Marxism" after, what, 1960?

Please -- these are your concerns, but they are the same concerns that everyone has, be they leftists, rightists or fascist anarchists, what defines the political spectrum is how these concerns are to be answered.

Isn't this JUST WHAT YOU ASKED FOR? *MY* concerns? Not a link, but MY concerns?

 

[vimothy]

I JUST TOLD YOU WHY I THINK THEY ARE NOT "LEFT" ENOUGH. You didn't seem to like that answer, but it's still why I (and MANY MANY OTHER LEFTISTS) would say about these people and their lack of sufficient leftism.

If you don't like my ideas, feel free to search google, you will find ample ideas of others on the same topic.

Exactly, that's what I said upthread -- you can't explain why they're not leftists, you just think that they're not because of their support for the war in Iraq, even though many of them have solid leftist credentials no doubt far greater than your own, with longer involvement in leftist politics, and pretty much all having gone to great lengths to explain their support for the war in leftists terms -- none of which you could be bothered refering to in your "explanation", to say nothing of any of their other none-Iraq-related politics.

The leftist values that are supposed to drive the left are:...one's own educational problems, one's own crime

-- Genius

All you have said is that support for the Iraq war makes you a rightist and / or centre-rightist. Anyone can do that. Just explain why, that's all I was asking, though doubtless you cannot.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Kouchner has been called a "political enigma" even by conservatives!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/10/13/kouchner_ed3_.php

FWIW i think Kouchner has got it bang on....

While he can create a storm of controversy, Kouchner likes to highlight his record, particularly his work with Médecins Sans Frontières and Médecins du Monde, organizations that send doctors to developing countries.

"You always hear criticism at the beginning of an idea," Kouchner said. "They used to talk about Hippies Without Borders, Doctors Without Diplomas, I've heard it all."

A basic tenet for the organizations, and Kouchner's fundamental belief, is the importance of intervention.

"I believe in the right to intervene," he said, "and people must recognize that humanitarian aid is political. A boat sent to rescue boat people is making an inherently political act."

To address peoples suffering, foreign intervention is often required. Be it aid agencies like MSF or the Red Cross/Crescent, multi-lateral peace-keeping forces or in some extreme circumstances direct/pre-emptive military invasion. This is not to say that intervention of any type will always work and its success clearly depends on a number of factors:
(1) the nature/complexity of the situation; (2) the planning and expertise of those involved; (3) the agency and intentions of other interest groups/actors affecting the crisis.

 

[matt b]

FWIW i think Kouchner has got it bang on....

what if the rescue boat then bombs the shit out of the boat people's vessel, ritually humiliates all male survivors then rapes and kills the floundering women?

that's virtually anarcho-syndicalism.

 

[nomadologist]

Exactly, that's what I said upthread -- you can't explain why they're not leftists, you just think that they're not because of their support for the war in Iraq, even though many of them have solid leftist credentials no doubt far greater than your own, with longer involvement in leftist politics, and pretty much all having gone to great lengths to explain their support for the war in leftists terms -- none of which you could be bothered refering to in your "explanation", to say nothing of any of their other none-Iraq-related politics.

The leftist values that are supposed to drive the left are:...one's own educational problems, one's own crime

-- Genius

All you have said is that support for the Iraq war makes you a rightist and / or centre-rightist. Anyone can do that. Just explain why, that's all I was asking, though doubtless you cannot.

"Doubtless you cannot". It's doubtless that you wouldn't have been able to pass a single one of the classes I've soared through with As...

You're bringing this discussion to a place that has very little to do with the original intent of the thread. Should we start a new thread called:

"Political Elementary School: What makes the right the right, and the left the left?"

I figured you were at least intelligent enough that I would not have to explain EVEN THIS, but if you insist...

 

[Mr BoShambles]

what if the rescue boat then bombs the shit out of the boat people's vessel, ritually humiliates all male survivors then rapes and kills the floundering women?

that's virtually anarcho-syndicalism.

are you thinking of a specific event here?

 

[nomadologist]

This whole thing is turning into *classic* Vimothy.

"But they claim to be leftists! That means they are! If you say that you are allied with a certain set of values, even if you flagrantly ignore those and your ideology ends up disagreeing with them on every level, you are still allied with those values! What, do you think someone could misrepresent their position in order to make a slimy political gesture toward "encompassing" the good values of the opposition while clinging to the bad ones from your actual alliances?"


"Apparently you can support an ideology without being a card-carrying member of the club! According to these loonies! Haha! Who has ever unwittingly supported a cause! How absurd!"

 

[vimothy]

YES supporting intervention makes Kamm a centrist. YES it is true for anyone, even people who believed in the intervention in Kosovo. NO you can't support military "intervention" and be a leftist. Absolutely NOT.

Ok, so that's obviously your position -- are you going to explain why this is inconsistent with leftism and why people who remain leftist in every other aspect might be considered rightist simply by virtue of this fact?

No, of course you're fucking not. It seems as though you don't even understand the question.

What are you talking about? There are no "Marxists" anymore. There may be people who read Marx, and sympathize with his ideas, but there is no such thing as politically vital or relevant "Marxism" after, what, 1960?

What aboput Gavin?

Anyway, I'm talking about Kanan Makiya, the Marxist Iraqi dissident who wrote The Republic of Fear and supported the US invasion.

But keep hedging and spluutering and avoiding the issue by all means.

Isn't this JUST WHAT YOU ASKED FOR? *MY* concerns? Not a link, but MY concerns?

I didn't ask for your concerns (leftists are concerned about "education" -- so is everyone, FFS), I asked for you to EXPLAIN WHY supporting the Iraq war is incompatible with leftism, and why people who regard themselves as leftists, who have left positions in all other categories than foreign policy, should be considered rightists, not to merely claim that it is.

Fuck around, nomadologist.

 

[nomadologist]

Hahah. hahahahhaha.
hahhahahhahhahaahhhhhha.

Oh boy, now I see the real issue. "How could you hold a political office for the democratic or leftist party and actually be a conservative or center-rightist in your actual policy-decisions and views?"

Happens all the time, Vim. See: special interest groups, lobbyism, and political opportunism.

Supporting a war that is about flagrant economic self-interest and that has destroyed the lives of several million people who happen to live in the general geographic region where critical natural resources (which are less abundant all the time and which are universally acknowledged to be key in the future of political power plays in the global economy) is not leftist because REPEAT AFTER ME leftists believe in minimizing military intervention and limiting it to situations in which the ethical imperative to save people is clear and unclouded by self- and special-interest.

See, boys and girls, people on the left believe that the ethical imperative is to forego the use of violence by any means necessary.

 

[matt b]

are you thinking of a specific event here?

shall we play a guessing game?

 

[Mr BoShambles]

shall we play a guessing game?

as much as I'd love to I don't have much time right now so perhaps you could just come out with whatever your trying to say...

 

[vimothy]

Hahah. hahahahhaha.
hahhahahhahhahaahhhhhha.

Oh boy, now I see the real issue. "How could you hold a political office for the democratic or leftist party and actually be a conservative or center-rightist in your actual policy-decisions and views?"

Happens all the time, Vim. See: special interest groups, lobbyism, and political opportunism.

Supporting a war that is about flagrant economic self-interest and that has destroyed the lives of several million people who happen to live in the general geographic region where critical natural resources (which are less abundant all the time and which are universally acknowledged to be key in the future of political power plays in the global economy) is not leftist because REPEAT AFTER ME leftists believe in minimizing military intervention and limiting it to situations in which the ethical imperative to save people is clear and unclouded by self- and special-interest.

See, boys and girls, people on the left believe that the ethical imperative is to forego the use of violence by any means necessary.

:slanted:

I give up

 

[matt b]

as much as I'd love to I don't have much time right now so perhaps you could just come out with whatever your trying to say...

are you a little simple?

use your knowledge and inagination to guess some places in thw world where claims are made about 'saving' and 'freeing' people, where in fact actions such as i've alluded to have occured?

hint: begins with I ends in RAQ

 

[crackerjack]

YES supporting intervention makes Kamm a centrist. YES it is true for anyone, even people who believed in the intervention in Kosovo. NO you can't support military "intervention" and be a leftist. Absolutely NOT.

Even by your own Olympian standards this is mindboggling bollocks.

Ken Liviingstone would be amused to find supporting the war in Kosovo means he's now a centrist.

 

[matt b]

i think anyone backing ian blair should be surprised to be called a 'leftist'

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Hahah. hahahahhaha.
hahhahahhahhahaahhhhhha.

Oh boy, now I see the real issue. "How could you hold a political office for the democratic or leftist party and actually be a conservative or center-rightist in your actual policy-decisions and views?"

Happens all the time, Vim. See: special interest groups, lobbyism, and political opportunism.

Supporting a war that is about flagrant economic self-interest and that has destroyed the lives of several million people who happen to live in the general geographic region where critical natural resources (which are less abundant all the time and which are universally acknowledged to be key in the future of political power plays in the global economy) is not leftist because REPEAT AFTER ME leftists believe in minimizing military intervention and limiting it to situations in which the ethical imperative to save people is clear and unclouded by self- and special-interest.

See, boys and girls, people on the left believe that the ethical imperative is to forego the use of violence by any means necessary.

you patronising fuck... of course violence should be minimized (no one here is advocating wanton death and destruction). but as you admit there are some cases where there is an 'ethical imperative' to intervene, and you need to face up to the fact that violence may well have to play a part in the more extreme cases. also it is surely possible for the 'left' to always find reason for accusations of self-interest and thus render every intervention as imperialism. and surely the international community must do something about Darfur given the atrocities being committed there as we speak.....but then Sudan has oil resources so we best steer well clear of that one.

 

[matt b]

you patronising fuck... of course violence should be minimized (no one here is advocating wanton death and destruction). but as you admit there are some cases where there is an 'ethical imperative' to intervene, and you need to face up to the fact that violence may well have to play a part in the more extreme cases.

have we started bombing pakistan and burma then? what have i been missing?

 

[Mr BoShambles]

have we started bombing pakistan and burma then? what have i been missing?

no but I can only assume that you would be vehemently against this. i'm sure that you're not going to pretend that the regimes in these two countries are agreeable*. so how do you recommend that the international community/the 'West'/or individual 'Western' states deal with these kind of circumstances?

*edit: both to the values promoted by the international community or to the majority of the public in these countries.

 

[nomadologist]

Even by your own Olympian standards this is mindboggling bollocks.

Ken Liviingstone would be amused to find supporting the war in Kosovo means he's now a centrist.

Supporting the war in Kosovo? I was talking about supporting American intervention in Kosovo.

 

[matt b]

no but I can only assume that you would be vehemently against this. i'm sure that you're not going to pretend that the regimes in these two countries are agreeable. so how do you recommend that the international community/the 'West'/or individual 'Western' states deal with these kind of circumstances?

within the law would be a start