The naughty Soviets? Seriously? Naughty? The Empire which subjugated vast swathes of the world, and was only prevented from further expansion by the noble acts, both by proxy in such nations as Afghanistan, and with boots on the ground in Vietnam and elsewhere, of the USA? Naughty? What a perverse use of the language. It is to be hoped that one day the comfortably off Western white liberal will see Communism for what it really is. A killing machine that puts even the vile Fascism in the shade. One thing you can guarantee when the left talks fondly of Marxism is that they aren't the ones who'll be toiling in the fields. Oh no, they'll be in the back of the Zil being whisked through the streets in a motorcade. Can modern Socialism work? South America today, held up as a beacon of the left, would suggest not. Wherever it gains control economic disaster follows.
Are you sure you're not talking about the British Empire? Anyone ever tell you about people in glass houses not throwing stones?
And as far fascists go who was it that fought and defeated the fascists? Ultimately, in every country it was the local communists, Trotskyists, anarchists, etc. who fought against fascism and Nazisms while people of your persuasion were still routing for Hitler. He was after all just as bad as the Soviets so why not take his side? Or better yet who else will save from the evil evil red menace or having to give workers healthcare.
This modern day fetish for equating the people who defeated fascism with fascists is really just a way to rehabilitate all those rich f***ing fools who routed for Hitler while demonizing those who actually opposed him--often with their lives. And, because quite frankly, given the state of the world today I suspect just like in the 1930s fascisms is looking pretty good to those who afraid they might lose their ill-gained wealth.
AND PLEASE PLEASE since you are so utterly predictable with the vulgarities that you vomit all over this webpage don't even bother brining up the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to cling to a nation-state. I have nothing but contempt for the Soviets, their invasions of Hungry and the crushing of the Prague Spring, the Cominterm and the fact that they basically destroyed the international left. Inidividual communist parties in various starts were at various point heroic when they're weren't openly selling out to the capitalist classes because the Soviets told them to or defending the latest Soviet act of aggression. The Soviet Union was an imperialist country. And an empire. And they behaved like all the empires. So stones and glass houses and all that shit.
And as far as calling the United States actions in Vietnam noble that is one of the truly most vile and ignorant things I've ever heard anyone say especially since thanks to the Pentagon Papers we know a lot about what went into to US thinking in the Vietnam.
Vietnam was a French colony and the French got kicked out by the Japanese. Ho Chi Minh kicked out the Japanese and asked to recognized as an independent country. First country he asked for recognition? The United States. The OSS, the precursor to the CIA, suggested we do just that, but Truman--who was truly one of the worst US Presidents--wouldn't have it and thought it was a better idea to back French in trying to recolonize Indochina. The Vietnamese also asked for the Soviets to recognize them as a country and they wouldn't do so either--not until after the Chinese did. Sino-Soviet tensions, national interest, you're kind of politics.
Meanwhile the French get their asses kicked and thrown out of Asia and as part of an international agreement agree to withdrawal from the North and than that they would later withdrawal from the South. The unified country was to have an election. But as we know from the Pentagon Papers Eisenhower didn't like this, because he believed in a free election 80% of the country would vote for Ho Chi Minh. I don't know if conducted a gallop poll or what, but that's not really relevant since he disregarded the Geneva Accords and put some Catholic from New Jersey in charge of the non-existent country of South Vietnam.
The North lost interests at this point, but there was a large Buddhist population didn't really like their US-chosen Catholic New Jersey dictator and well you can imagine what happens yet. As a result, the United States does something that you will never read about in any history book and invaded South Vietnam. We attacked and devastated the rural population by bombing them with our air force and than forcing them into concentration camps (concentration camps being an invention of the British during the Boers War).
This wasn't enough so in 1964 Lyndon Johnson FABRICATED a nonexistent attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to get Congressional approval to start waging war against North Vietnam. During this war we carpet bombed people and used such vicious weapons as napalm, burning people to death. Eventually we gave up since our soldiers started refusing to fight the war and the last time this happened…well we know how that ended in Russia.
But why did we do all this? Well, according to the Pentagon Papers we were very concerned about US access to rubber, tin, and oil. Official government line.
We murdered between 1 million-3 million civilians by official counts (though McNamara personally claimed the real number was well over four million) for rubber, tin, and oil? How noble.
And what happened after we lost? Well, the US still from what I can tell has plenty of rubber, tin, and oil and Vietnam is a despotic state that makes sweat shop shoes for Westerners (not to mention sex tourism). Lovely little noble war.
While we are on the subject of glass houses and stones, I might suggest you stop calling Morrissey a sociopath.
As for Islam and Sharia, and this rose tinted talk of 7th century enlightenment, well, thankfully, the Muslim civilisation faltered and died several hundred years ago, replaced eventually by that of Europe, and the world took a huge step forward. Yes, science, yes, mathematics, all marvellous advances, but it died. Like the Chinese before them, whose invention of porcelain led them to eschew the advances which could be made by the creation of glass, they handed down great knowledge, but they died. Who knows what would have happened if Muslim civilisation had prospered? Perhaps we'd be living on Mars by now. Well, the men, anyway.
To call Sharia comparatively progressive twelve hundred years ago is what I think is known as damning with faint praise. You say Sharia was no worse, in fact, perhaps better, than what was happening in England at the time. You may be right. The thing is we've moved on, while Sharia, which by your own admission was not too bad 1200 years ago, has not. You want to see modern Sharia? There no such thing. Go to Liveleak and search for FSA. That's Sharia. It's the same old Sharia. Only the weapons and clothing have changed. You'll know Anjem Choudray, but for our foreign readers he's a "radical" Islamic preacher, except he isn't radical at all. He's old school. He is the true face of Islam. The moderates are the radicals.
I do not support Sharia Law. I dislike theocracy. I wish the US would stop propping up Saudi Arabia. My responses were in context to other comments. You have removed the original context and thus I do not feel the need to further speak about Sharia law.
There a strong element of racism when an argument rests essentially upon a view that if people with skin darker than a latte exhibit poor behaviour today it must be the fault of white skinned people yesterday. Are those people somehow incapable of behaving in a civilised manner? From Detroit, to Dalston, to Damascus that's utter bullshit.
I write a lot over on the Guardian website, and I see your arguments all day, every day. What it boils down to Chip, when push comes to shove, is that in the eyes of the left white people in the West are inherently evil, and in your eyes the rest of the world are noble savages. Now that's racism.
Well, there's something called history and noticing that everyday when you wake up the whole world doesn't start completely anew. To say that present events aren't the product events of past events is just so intellectually bankrupt of a worldview that I don't have the time and energy to explain this concept to you.
I will ask you not to attribute views to me that are not mine. I do not think the West is inherently evil and the rest of the world is "noble savages." Noble savages implies that I think people are noble, because they exist in a more primitive state and that problems are caused by modernity. I do not believe this and I do not want to return to any past eras.
The West has no monopoly on evil. The Japanese were extremely brutal imperialist during World War II. I am fairly certain the Ottoman Empire didn't extend itself through free kittens and ice cream. And I can think of plenty evil men who aren't white Westerners--Pinochet, Suharto, Paul Kagame, the Saudi Royal family, Mubarak, Assad, Marcos, Somoza all come to my mind immediately. I'm not some sort of Maoist third world nationalist who thinks there are oppressor nations where everyone is evil and oppressed nations that can do no wrong. I do think you know history is a thing and that in spite of fixation on the modern nation state system the world system is a global interconnected one. Thus, things like colonialism you know happened.
I could explain my views further, but as I've stated earlier I'm really only on this forum to hypothesize what Morrissey's views on Passolini's films may be. I expect your latest vomit will not touch this topic.
