Paris Attacks
- This topic has 108 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some sensible comment from Simon Jenkins in The Guardian:
Quote:Think what your enemy wants you to do, and do the opposite. No maxim of war is so ignored…..Western leaders seem blind to reason.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/terror-cooperation-paris-attack-response-war-isisThe problem that Jenkins' liberal ideology doesn't identify is that it is entirely 'reasonable' to the ruling class.Not least, there's support for the rich in fear by the poor of 'the enemy', and profits for the rich in war, and regeneration of capitalism in spending on armaments.
alanjjohnstone wrote:YMS, i have seen your comments that you seek to equate IS with some criminal cocaine cartel and i expect that this is what you mean by talking down IS.I'm not sure your analogy is the right one but i cannot claim even any confidence in my own opinions. IS regardless of what we want to think do possess an ideology, political and religious and it has an appeal well outside its home in Iraq and Syria. It has replaced or supplanted Al Qaida. So to a degree it is successful in the battlefield of ideas and cross cultural.Every corporation has a "brand" and an "ethos", some that stretch beyond their membership and command support in the wider world: Apple has fan boys, Google has it's hippy image, M&S commands wider support. Our regular job is to point out that for all their 'ethoses' (?!?) they are just profit machines. So is IS, it's just a bunch of gangsters in the desert.
YMS wrote:Every corporation has a "brand"… IS, it's just a bunch of gangsters in the desert.This only makes sense if you also insist that, for example, the RAF, doing their 'bombing' and 'machine-gunning' are similarly 'a bunch of gangsters in the desert'.Although, the RAF wanted to take things a step further in Iraq in the '20s: they wanted to use poison gas on the rebellious tribes.So, when ISIS explode a nerve gas bomb in London, we'll already know just who showed them the way: our 'bunch of gangsters'.The RAF's 'brand'? "Atrocities 'R' Us"?http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts
It is fascinating to observe a non member having to argue the Socialist case on war against usIt is a capitalist war prpaganda tactic to refer to one side as a 'bunch of gangsters' or 'nutters' or 'terrorists' and give the other side some form of legitimacy. Socialists take no sides in the wars of capitalism.Israeli murdering gangsters are at it every day but I will not display the imagesLBird is spot on in this instance
LBird wrote:Surely a socialist/communist slogan should read "Neither God, nor State, but Our Class"?Of course, it lacks the 'populist' touch, but whilst capitalism is popular, our message will continue to grate with the majority.But that's no reason to stop 'grating the minds of the majority' – we have to promote critical thought amongst workers, not tack with the media wind. Some will listen now, and as the 'remedies' of the Western governments make things worse, and cause yet more atrocities both in the Middle East and Europe, more will begin to listen, if there is a clear alternative.totally agree. An appeal to humanity is utopian idealist nonsenseSocialists appeal for a revolutionary working class.
Vin wrote:It is fascinating to observe a non member having to argue the Socialist case on war against us….LBird is spot on in this instancePlus ca change… wrote:It is fascinating to observe a non member having to argue the Socialist case on physics against us….LBird is spot on in this instanceI'm still not convinced, YMS. You'll have to offer a better case. For sure, many illegal political organisations use gangsterism to provide the cash to finance their activities, particularly if they have embarked upon armed uprising. The IRA and the UDA, were into drug deals or so we are led to believe. The Bolsheviks had its illegal phase. Some German communists after the Sparticaists were into bank robbery…You would perhaps claim the difference is just a matter of degree and extent. But i'd still argue that nationalism was behind the IRA and it was not a criminal organisation for profit even if it did use such methods as protection rackets to pay its soldiers a wage. But i'd like more explanation from you that trying to create a nation state, a theocratic based one, is gangsterism and simply a cover to steal oil and loot archeological artifacts to sell. IS arose from specific conditions in Iraq that tapped into the Sunnis who had just been dislodged by the Shia in the power pyramid . I quoted the view of British intelligence that Sunni tribes in Iraq and Sunni princes in Saudi supported the rise of IS and are still supporters, even id somewhat reluctant, nowadaysAs for cutting funds by cutting the IS oil market, what is the going price for several AK-47s. The attacks in Paris were very cost-effective, and to think stopping funding IS is going to work, isn't being realistic. We see in Jerusalem, you don't even need guns…a few kitchen knives or using a car as a weapon is sufficient to create an atmosphere of terror.
Fisk at his best again bringing some perspective to the problem…and asking a poignant question ….if the French could retaliate by taking out an arms depot and training base, why didn't they do it a week ago rather than in revenge attack?…If it was the Americans who offered them this inteligence for a target, why didn't the American's bomb it themselves. If the Russian's are accused of not aiming attacks at ISIS, why are the Coalition holding back their attacks upon ISIS? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/france-s-unresolved-algerian-war-sheds-light-on-the-paris-attack-a6736901.html
The shares of the weapon dealers rise https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/stock-prices-of-weapons-manufacturers-soaring-since-paris-attack/
alanjjohnstone wrote:For sure, many illegal political organisations use gangsterism to provide the cash to finance their activities, particularly if they have embarked upon armed uprising. The IRA and the UDA, were into drug deals or so we are led to believe. The Bolsheviks had its illegal phase. Some German communists after the Sparticaists were into bank robbery…You would perhaps claim the difference is just a matter of degree and extent. But i'd still argue that nationalism was behind the IRA and it was not a criminal organisation for profit even if it did use such methods as protection rackets to pay its soldiers a wage. But i'd like more explanation from you that trying to create a nation state, a theocratic based one, is gangsterism and simply a cover to steal oil and loot archeological artifacts to sell. IS arose from specific conditions in Iraq that tapped into the Sunnis who had just been dislodged by the Shia in the power pyramid . I quoted the view of British intelligence that Sunni tribes in Iraq and Sunni princes in Saudi supported the rise of IS and are still supporters, even id somewhat reluctant, nowadays1) The IRA are stuill in "business" and a fair few of their commanders grew rich and fat from their business operations; and they always represented the business case of a section of the Irish capitalist class. It was just a continuation of business, even if they did try to sanctify their interests with a cause that could command the loyalty of their troops. the main difference, however, unlike the warbands in Africa and mexico and Iraq is there wasn't a labour-unintensive extractive industry they could seize to mkae their money, and a large uneducated surplus population they could cheaply throw away.2) Nation states are just the bigger bunch of gangsters and pirates.
Vin wrote:It is fascinating to observe a non member having to argue the Socialist case on war against usIt is a capitalist war prpaganda tactic to refer to one side as a 'bunch of gangsters' or 'nutters' or 'terrorists' and give the other side some form of legitimacy. Socialists take no sides in the wars of capitalism.Israeli murdering gangsters are at it every day but I will not display the imagesLBird is spot on in this instanceWhere do I give either side any legitimacy? My whole point is that the British war machine (which I have said we have to oppose) will try to talk the bunch of gangsters up into some sort of existential threat and a grand cause. The first step to opposing the whole war is to show that it is just business as usual, and not a grand moral cause that supercedes the class struggle and demands human unity between masters and workers.They are a bunch of gangsters, it is business as usual, and so our position must be to continue to oppose and call for an end to business and capitalism, and, yes, the Brituish state are just as much a bunch of gangsters (sorry if I didn't reply to Lbird repeating what I had already said, but I didn't see any need to point out to her that I had already made those points).What I want to know is why Lbird apparently advocates using a Giant Robot Octopus to smash IS…
Still not convinced.LBird wants to equate ISIS with the RAF. Now that might be just about doable when it comes to convincing fellow workers. You tried to compare ISIS with Marks and Spencers. That will an almost an impossible task when it comes to persuading our fellow workers. All politics is gangsterism seems to be the cynical position you are putting forward. Certainly it may possible to argue that Cameron is part of a criminal elite – crony corrupt capitlism. But can we also place Corbyn into that category? Certainly we say the capitaist class robs the worker of surplus value but that is a specific form of exploitation. You are right that our fight is against capitalism but i'm not so sure we can button-hole it as SPECTRE, SMERSH or any other supranational criminal organisation. Yes, overall, i think our best approach, is to advocate socialism, Banish gods from the sky and capitalists from the Earth. I've proposed a couple of practical ways to do that and still no one has agreed or disagreed, leaving me still not knowing if they were good proposals to be taken up or bad suggestions to be dismissed but this thread want to take the discussion beyond what the SPGB is capable of doing.We are not able to compete even with the ISIS at an ideological level because we decline to challenge them on their own ground…i.e. at a religious level. I vaguely recall a long time ago DannyL when he was a regular orator at Hyde Park becoming involved with some radical Muslims speakers there and the idea of a formal debate was raised…and we shit our pants – so to speak – scared that the debate would become a physical confrontation and HO would be damaged and no more was said about the possibility.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Still not convinced.LBird wants to equate ISIS with the RAF. Now that might be just about doable when it comes to convincing fellow workers. You tried to compare ISIS with Marks and Spencers. That will an almost an impossible task when it comes to persuading our fellow workers.Well, it's not that there is a direct and easy equation between the British state and ISIS, more that there is an observable economic formation which repeats itself, and allows us to ask, why the focus on IS and not Colombia, Mexico, Boko Harem, etc. These rape/murder gangs are nothing special, and emerge out of the basic situation or portable wealth near surplus populations, hence why they replicate essentially medieval 'surplus extractive' social structures.We need to be able to explain that this doesn't happen because of nasty ideas floating around just waiting to land in susceptible heads, nor happening at the instigation of insidious plotters and ideologues.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.