# Contact info submission url: exile-blog.blogspot.com site_owner: address1: address2: city: state: country: postal_code: phone_number: display_email: site_name: site_description: The Exile

E-Mail Me

My Twitter

Top Blogs

LeftWing2

Campaign 4 Public Ownership

FASO

FASSIT

Mothers For Justice

Ian Josephs

UKSecretCourt's Videos

Unity-Injustice




Chris Paul

David Lindsay

Heresy Corner

Machetera

Martin Meenagh

Neil Clark

Organised Rage

Renegade Eye

Serb Blog

Splintered Sunrise

Star of Vergina

Unrepentant Communist

Agitprop

British Politics

Censorship 01

Collaborators

Gimlet

Imperialism

Memories

Mexico

New Britain 01

New Britain 02

Sleaze

Social Work Industry

Wankblogs

Working Class

Atom Feed

XML Feed





05 April 2006
Building opposition to imperialism: two opposing views
Neil Clark quotes approvingly from this document which argues that anti-imperialist groups can use the country's decentralised structures against the warmongers.

The problem with this argument is that, as Scott Ritter has shown, the imperialists are already planning for their next aggression, probably against Iran this time. Ritter makes the point that it is no use opposing wars after they have started, which is what the argument above is, because all that happens is that anti-imperialists are left responding to events. Ritter posits that we need to get ahead of the game and aim to snooker ever claim that the imperialists make.

For this to happen, he says, a permanent think tank needs to be established that will study the imperialist groups and teach people how to counter their arguments. To defeat the enemy we need to understand the enemy, in the same way that a military commander understands the way his opposite number thinks.

I have to agree with Ritter on this. I am tired of being left in imperialism's wake as it marches forward into other lands. It is time we got our act together and met them head on. Only that way can we even hope to actually stop a war.
1 Comments:

I think that this "thinktank" has actually already existed for a long time: it's called the "international working-class movement". I'd call it the 'communist' movement, but I'd be misunderstood...
;>

Scott Ritter is effectively calling for a revolutionary party and mass movement, whether he admits it or not; because to develop a movement with the power to decisively defeat the U.S. ruling-class at its core strategic trajectory would at the same time be a movement with the power to challenge U.S. capitalism itself -- which is in fact the order of the day, capitalist imperatives being the whole root of the problem. And this potentiality is what U.S. capital is actually frantically preparing for, with its burgeoning police-state roll-out program. Halliburton gulag, anyone..? Everyone?

However, Scott Ritter is also obviously an anti-communist, and doesn't likely understand anything about marxism -- unlike Stan Goff, who is really the ex-soldier you should be tracking. Ritter's solution effectively boils down to revolution within the confines of the capitalist system. Which amounts to no victory at all in the end: the profit motive behind the present rush to insanity will always and incessantly re-assert itself relentlessly unless and until removed from the equation of social relations. Which is the whole point of social, socialist revolution.

Nothing new under the Sun here: the same job needs to be done as what was attempted 100 years ago -- only it's more obviously urgent today.

5 April 2006 at 17:39  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home