Comments on: A Big Week for Liberal Imperialism

By: Bhaskar

Bhaskar — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:01:06 +0000

The way I see it is that the people of Afghanistan need to be incorporated into the world market and with other regional actors. They need a healthy indigenous ruling class. They need foreign capital to exploit their labor and resources. (They really need a world with vibrant socialist movements in the core capitalist countries.)

To express opposition to an unpopular foreign policy that’s probably doomed to failure is a good thing, but when “anti-imperialism” is the primary focus of your politics you end up on the fast track to PSL/WWP land. I use the term, but I’m not even sure how one defines “imperialism” nowadays. In the sense that Lenin meant it–super-profits from colonial exploitation, etc….. this isn’t at all what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan (or what has has happened after the WW2-era).

Left narratives have confused the wider population with slogans like “no blood for oil” that cynically obscure American foreign policy. ( http://cpgb.org.uk/worker/794/isittheoil.php ) We should of course be for troops out and at the vanguard of the anti-war movement, but our real politics are in our social democratic / anti-capitalist alternatives.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:00:17 +0000

Er, I think people like Joyla would like all countries, including China, Iran,etc. to be hands off with Afghanistan. And Richard agrees too. I mean, we wouldn’t have to worry about the taliban rising again because the average afghanistan citizens don’t like them either.

By: Bhaskar

Bhaskar — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:42:36 +0000

There is a lot wrong with Tariq Ali… but it’s more in the direction of his open support for “anti-imperialist” resistance from Islamist forces in Iraq (and the decline of the New Left Review under his stewardship).

Ali is informed by his family’s personal experience with the British rushed partition and withdrawal from India and I read his comments in that context. “They should pull out sensibly” and engage other regional powers. I’m not sure how that’s objectionable.

By: Chris Maisano

Chris Maisano — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:51:33 +0000

I’m not really sure how you could interpret Ali’s remarks as some kind of imperialism. What he proposes is really quite sensible. I don’t see how you could make a successful Afghan settlement without involvement and investment from regional powers.

By: David

David — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:49:16 +0000

Bhaskar: Your question can only be answered by time itself.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:40:09 +0000

An interesting tidbit contrasting the opinions of Malyia Jolya and Tarq Ali here: http://amleft.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_amleft_archive.html#3958494908044172353

I argued Ali’s answer was something of another form of imperialism. I am for providing aid, but only with the notification and okay from the country’s citizens themselves. Hell, the lack of Aid in the country itself was the reason for the Taliban ‘s return to popularity.

By: Bhaskar

Bhaskar — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:41:52 +0000

I’m sure the Vietnamese people would take the Doi moi era over any of the other alternatives they had. If anything it just shows how Pyrrhic the “victories” of third world nationalism were / are.

A more relevant question: How will young liberals who voted for Obama take this news? Will they accept the decision, become disillusioned, further politicize?

By: Jason Schulman

Jason Schulman — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:03:56 +0000

The U.S. transnational corporations are already there, Sean! “We” didn’t leave for long…

By: Sean Monahan

Sean Monahan — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:42:55 +0000

We obviously need to increase our presence in Vietnam.