Too often I notice when a nation in the global south is targeted by the imperialists there are all sorts of people rushing to proclaim "critical support" for the said nation, even if it has no left-wing bent at all or is openly anti-communist. There are two problems with this.
First, all support should be critical support. Uncritical support is anti-Marxist and against the spirit of "ruthless criticism of all things". It breeds dogmatism which is poisonous to critical thinking. There is a reason why Mao railed so hard against dogmatism.
Second, it frames the discussion as to whether the said country is good or not, which is not the point of the political line. We do not support global south countries like Iran just because, especially if they are not socialist. We should not be centring the governments that are affected, but the imperialist actions themselves.
I see discussions about this where people end up talking over one another. After seeing someone proclaim 'critical support', someone else will point out said countries faults and as to why they are worthy of support. The first person will then say that because that country is under attack we should support them. These discussions usually go nowhere because both people are technically right, it's just that they are misunderstanding each other.
This is where my idea of replacing "Critical support to countries affected by US imperialism" with "Unconditional opposition to US imperialism in all its forms" comes in. The second slogan allows a lot more flexibility in thinking, instead of committing to supporting countries, you commit to opposing imperialism and nothing more. Your support for various reactionary anti-imperialist causes starts and ends with their opposition to imperialism. As soon as they stop you stop supporting them. If they do awful things you don't have to support them on that basis as it's not relevant to opposing imperialism.
What do you think?
I like this framing, and I think you correctly identified a lot of the lazy analysis that stems from the discourse around "critical support." I think most people that claim critical support know this, but centering the contradiction of imperialism in the discussion keeps you from having to perform rhetorical gymnastics for why you "support" a country that has done objectively not good things.
Not that you don't have a point, but from an image standpoint propaganda wonks swear by the idea that you look better supporting something than opposing something else. People respond poorly to critical support of periphery countries because they're indoctrinated with jingoist, nationalist bullshit, and they respond even worse to direct, clear opposition to their nationalist beliefs. So, if one's trying to rebrand a policy stance for PR reasons it's counterproductive to choose something that's going to be perceived more negatively.
but from an image standpoint propaganda wonks swear by the idea that you look better supporting something than opposing something else.
I don't disagree with you here, but in the context of anti-imperialism from my observed experience, critical support seems more detrimental. What we ultimately support is a world without imperialism, we should focus more on that.
People respond poorly to critical support of periphery countries because they’re indoctrinated with jingoist, nationalist bullshit
It depends, yes there is absolutely propaganda like with Bolivia and the fires, or with Iraq and the incubators, but there are also legitimate criticisms one can make. Assad aligned himself with the west and carried out neoliberal economic policies before the Arab spring for example. We cannot dismiss these criticisms if we want to have a holistic understanding of what is going on. The point of my reframing is to make it so that it doesn't matter if we criticize of the target government because we are committed to anti-imperialism.
This makes sense, although I do think that although language that is theoretically clear may not make good propaganda, the reverse is also true
If you are worried about image, you will do much more harm to your image by supporting a country that people (either falsely or not) believe has performed human rights abuses or whatever else libs will bring up.
Anytime I am pushing libs away from imperialism, I can always just say "it doesn't matter what that country is doing, look at what we did in Iraq", etc. Framing your position as an opposition to imperialism means they can throw whatever propaganda they want at you, it doesn't harm your criticism. It also works as a (completely valid and necessary) appeal to the common person. Saying that you support a nation automatically associates you with their government, the people in power, etc. Simply saying that you don't think people should be invaded is way simpler.
The response is either that the other person is convinced, they give up that line of logic, or they shut up completely, because going any farther would necessitate them saying some really overtly bloodthirsty shit.
I disagree. If you oppose military intervention in Syria, that's going to be equated to supporting Assad anyway, and if you hem and haw about that then it looks like a deflection. It also opens the door to "why do you hate the global poor" type criticisms, where it may look like your position is that Assad is a brutal evil dictator and we could liberate the Syrian people and save a bunch of lives, but you'd rather have free college, or you just think war is bad without looking at context or nuance.
Personally, I'd rather own it. I'd rather say, "Yes, although I don't like him, I think that Assad should remain in power because the alternatives are worse." This comes across as less about an idealistic grand principle that imperialism is bad, and more about having analyzed the situation and being willing to make a tough call based on the actual conditions. People (Americans, anyway) generally respond better to the latter than the former, we like tough calls and pragmatic decisions and we hate those ivory tower elites who don't know what the world is really like. Imo, your approach comes across as high minded and theoretical, which allows the libs to take the pragmatic line. Better to be a little edgy and let them piss and shit over "supporting dictators" and then when they're done you can calmly explain that actually, you agree that he's a bad guy, but you just don't want ISIS to come back or to have a repeat of Iraq.
If you oppose military intervention in Syria, that’s going to be equated to supporting Assad anyway,
Did people equate opposing the Iraq war to be support for Saddam Hussein? I do genuinely think that you can oppose intervention and attempts are regime change without support for the regime independent of imperialism.
and if you hem and haw about that then it looks like a deflection. It also opens the door to “why do you hate the global poor” type criticisms, where it may look like your position is that Assad is a brutal evil dictator and we could liberate the Syrian people and save a bunch of lives, but you’d rather have free college, or you just think war is bad without looking at context or nuance.
Nah if someone is arguing that US military intervention in a country is good for the sake of the global poor then they are an imperialist CHUD and you should just tell them to fuck off. There's no convincing people who unironically think that "US world police" concept is a good thing.
Did people equate opposing the Iraq war to be support for Saddam Hussein?
Um, yes? Absolutely? Well, I guess more accurately it was equated to supporting Al Qaeda. Are you forgetting what the political climate was like post 9/11 when Bush had 90%+ approval ratings? When everyone was saying, "You're either with us or against us?"
Nah if someone is arguing that US military intervention in a country is good for the sake of the global poor then they are an imperialist CHUD and you should just tell them to fuck off. There’s no convincing people who unironically think that “US world police” concept is a good thing.
This strikes me as really, really dumb. I'm sorry, but your whole way of thinking seems off.
Wasn't this whole post about being more persuasive towards people who support imperialist projects? If you're writing all these people off, then it doesn't matter if you alienate them by saying you critically support dictators. So what's the point then? If all you're trying to do is preserve your own moral purity, that's lib shit.
That aside, it's absurd to write people off for buying into that narrative. There's tons of propaganda pushing that narrative and it's easy to fall victim to it. In fact, you don't even need the propaganda, you just need to not be well informed about the history of US intervention. After all, these dictators are legitimately bad, and it's easy for a rational, well-intentioned person to think that intervention could solve the problem. Most people like that are just naive and misinformed.
So, like, I think your take is shit, sorry.
Critical support and this what unconditional opposition is cowardice that is basically the trotty critical support but reversed which only seeks to muddy the waters
When imperialism gears up to destroy a country it does so in a very rapid timeframe by it's nature. Because if you look too closely at the details it falls apart under any kind of scrutiny (babies in incubators, 250,000 buried in mass graves by Milosevic, WMDS in iraq, Gadaffi handing viagra to soldiers to rape etc.)
It does it rapidly for 2 reasons
-
to not allow antiwar demonstrations
-
whilst the public is still in the fog of war propaganda
During this heightened period of propaganda everything becomes black and white. You are either against imperialism or not or droning on boring everyone describing the entire history of that country and why that person shouldn't be overthrown cos Washington says so
For instance when NATO-EU fascists began colour revolution in Belarus look what the Communist Party of Belarus put out - despite them not being anywhere near power, despite knowing that Lukashenko has basically just held onto a few remnants of the socialist system
https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&u=http://www.comparty.by/news/za-belarus-zayavlenie-centralnogo-komiteta-kommunisticheskoy-partii-belarusi
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/belarussian-communists-call-international-support-stop-bloody-coup-imperialists
They framed it as a life and death issue (and indeed as we saw in Ukraine what de-communisation means in practice: fascism, fascists in power, the glorification of nazi collaborators, outlawing of communists and communist parties, lynching of communists, racist nationalism and national chauvinism in regard to language and destruction of socialist symbols)
They did not write some academic cuck shit like "plz give lukahshenko critical support" or "unconditional opposition" with a long diatribe of soviet history and Belarussian capitalism etc.
While the opposition was singing Nazi songs and waving nazi collaborator flags they did not beg for some abstract phrase most people won't understand
They asked for solidarity. Instead of worrying about the "respectability" of what imperialists think (who aren't your allies in the first place) grow a backbone
I think you are missing the point of what I was saying. My main point is that our positions here should stem from anti-imperialism first and foremost. This means that it doesn't matter whether the government is good or not. We can all agree that while Saddam was a piece of shit, his country being invaded by the US was worth opposing.
I have seen a tendency from many people who proclaim critical support, to try to make the target state look good. For example, with Belarus, before the protests, everyone agreed that it was a capitalist country in the Russian sphere of influence and was not socialist. The protests did not change this. But people changed their views on Belarus. Now we have people praising Lukasheka for supposedly implementing socialist policies despite the fact that these policies are just state-owned corporations and a welfare state that is better than most eastern European countries. There are no planned elements of the Belarus economy. Same deal with Syria, people started trying to find good things that Assad did that they could use to justify support independent of anti-imperialism.
I think that Maoists have the best takes on this. They are able to support nations against imperialism, while at the same time recognising that said nations can in face be awful, and not socialist.
-
Isn't this kind of semantic? I'm pretty sure "critical support" always meant "critical support (in the struggle) against imperialism". For instance no Marxist supports an Iranian theocracy, unless the other option is US imperialism, so we maintain our criticisms of the Iranian theocracy, but recognize that it is the better option and so we support it in the struggle against imperialism. Similarly we would support a bourgeois struggle against fascism (unless you're a Trot I suppose), while maintaining a criticism of bourgeoisie capitalism.
On the other hand we have maintained unconditional opposition to imperialism since the end of the 19th century so I certainly don't disagree with that framing either.
Edit: I suppose the problem comes from the fact that "critical support" might have actually been tied to actual material and political support in the past. Now it's just an empty phrase.
I’m pretty sure “critical support” always meant “critical support (in the struggle) against imperialism”.
That is what it is supposed to do, but I see a lot of people leaving the critical out of it. Emphasising that it doesn't matter that the target state is bad or not is good for preventing people from falling into the trap of defending countries that are anti communist.
Unconditional opposition to US imperialism in all its forms
this cold war tankie geopolitics considers people to not be relevant political subjects, so when they riot they say "The CIA is causing this". In reality, color revolutions make use of the already existing local tensions and conflicts.
color revolutions make use of the already existing local tensions and conflicts.
There are tensions in every single country though
considers people to not be relevant political subjects, so when they riot they say “The CIA is causing this”.
People are political subjects but they also need jobs to work and worry about public opinion (as they might be fired for their job if they enagage in political activity)
Now imagine going up to groups and saying "I'll pay you $100,000 a year but I want you protesting 9am to 5pm everyday"
Imagine for instance if FSB from Russia approaches white supremacist groups in US and pays them each $100,000
They are now freed from A) having to work a job to provide income B) public stigma of being involved in racist groups cos they have a new income that can't be taken away
(reminder a lot of white nationalists lost their jobs off charlotteville protests)
So in this instance would you consider "FSB to be causing this" or are the white nationalists now exercising their sole political agency?
Because the NED poured $29 million into Hong Kong protests. I think it's safe to say the CIA caused the protests in HK
https://www.mintpressnews.com/hong-kong-protest-united-states-destabilize-china/261712/
