Remember when he was tots ok with US imperialism in Iraq and Central America because uh… uh… both sides have states...

Just because many largely US and Israeli supported Arab regimes were shit doesn't justify Israel's genocidal colonial-Apartheid regime. Its honestly the closest thing to classical racialist- fascism since the fall of Apartheid SA in 1994.

Anti-imperialism as a defacto position of the left is actually a relatively new phenomenon, one which began with the influence of Maoism on the New Left. Historically, prior to Leninism the Old Left was actually overwhelmingly anti-nationalist and pro-working class internationalism, rather than specifically anti-imperialist.

Being against anti-imperialism doesn't mean being pro-imperialism. I am against all nationalist and believe in revolutionary socialist internationalism. Contemporary anti-imperialism is reactionary as fuck, and amounts to autistic pro-Assad, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, and pro-Eurasia more generally, screeching.

I mean, you could still be a communalist and not agree with Bookchin on his Israel stance.

Name one theorist you support to the letter completely… apart from Kropotkin

In my book that makes you de facto anti-imperialist tho but I won't fight you over it

Even Kropotkin made mistakes. They supported WW1 against Germany.

as for the bottom part, that isn't actual anti imperialism. For me any state or corporation is a little empire. I know its a different conception, but I tend to see empire and capital as basically interchangeable even though I understand that they are not.

Well exactly

This is… simply not true? The Socialists of the Second International-era were the first relevant movement to push for decolonization, to stand against WW1 (despite some support from their ranks), etc. And in the 19th century anti-war, anti-colonialism was already a common sentiment among leftists.

That's what i said, I hope Communalists don't support US-Isreali-Saudi imperialism in the middle east.

Even if WW1 was basically a really retarded war between european royal families truing to consolidate their colonial power..what did you wanted? Germany to conquer everything?

This sentence is retarded. Being anti-imperialist doesn't mean you have to support every single anti-Western military dictator and Islamic militant who says death to america, it just means combating imperialism and supporting internationalism.

There are so many things wrong here I almost don't even know where to begin. My favorite part is that you don't realize that anti-imperialism has been with the Left since the beginning of the 20th Century and that you're so uninformed that you seem to somehow directly link anti-imperialism with nationalism and anti-internationalism.

Marx actively supported the national liberation in Ireland and Poland. Although he recognized that the conquest of India by Britain was part of capitalism's destiny to conquer the world he wrote after the Sepoy Rebellion that the complete liberation of India should be considered after Britain's brutal response. He was also against Britain's imperialist escapades in China and opposed British attempts to intervene on the Southern side of the US civil War.

So anti-imperialism wasn't just a meme invented by Lenin but part of socialist praxis that sought to differentiate between the oppressor nations and the oppressed ones. Marx didn't oppose Irish and Polish nationalism as inherently reactionary because they were primarily bourgeois-democratic movements led by the anti-communist bourgeoisie of those respective countries.

Isn't that what happened?

Tell that to the autists supporting anything to the East of the USA, whether Iran, Russia, Syria, etc.

Sources:

Going dude both sides lmao on Saddam Hussein:
social-ecology.org/wp/1991/04/the-left-that-was-a-personal-reflection/

And if you think this is a reasonable position because Saddam is evil, eat shit and leave this board

dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/turning.html

This is probably not as well known, but the Misquito separatists were largely a movement funded by a few Misquito individuals and supported by the americans. The alleged threat of "genocide" they suffered was a huge part of Reagan's rhetoric back then, and they often worked with Contras, tortured Misquitos who supported the Sandinistas, etc. Rivera was particularly instrumental in securing US support and in, at several times, inciting clueless and hitherto apolitical indians to either start aggressions with the Sandinista or break ceasefires.

Everywhere he went he preached to Leftists to stop their opposition to US wars and US-sponsored regimes because of this retarded Both Sides-ist horseshit.

Why the fuck should anyone on this board define anti-imperialism by the party lines of retarded dwindling ML cults? Anti-imperialism is something that's existed on the Left long before them and long after them.

lmao, bookchin is fucking shit

Baathism is actually Arabic fascism, retard.

As others have pointed out, no leftist thinker is perfect and all of them make mistakes. That Bookchin made mistakes doesn't mean that their ideas aren't the most relevant form of political philosophy today.

...

Well what we can conclude is that good father Apo (with influence from old grandpappy Vladimir) brought the anti-imperialism in buckets and the synthesis is glorious

so people die in wars ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It might be anti-imperialist but it's not Anti-Imperialist

Everything ever said about Bookchin in this board has only lead me to believe he wasn't particularly harmful to the Left, just a very mediocre thinker in general spitting platitudes any teenager who spergs out about Kronstadt could come up with.

The '91 war was caused by Saddam's aggression, this wasn't '03.

bernie sanders would massacre every Palestinian for his ratlike brood lol

The implication of the debate in this thread is that you can even be an imperialist in the 21st century, when capitalism has become globalized. There is no "outside" that Imperialism expands into and takes over, all current wars are just interventions into capitalism itself.

I'd recommend Passages of Production, from Empire libcom.org/library/empire-antonio-negri but I tried to sum up some of the points here deepcomrade.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/on-third-worldism-and-anti-imperialism/

Here's also a good critique of "Anti-X" movements: thecharnelhouse.org/2016/06/05/we-are-not-anti/

And, as we know, capitalism is free of inner conflicts, diverging interests and competition, and which capitalist, which group of capitalists, which capitalists under which state and so on have no reason to use force to secure resources or arrangements that serve they interest at the expense of others.

If you think this is a relevant point to this thread then you attribute a different meaning to Imperialism than anyone else here does, and your Imperialism refers to a specific and narrow historical stage of capitalism, which is not what we're discussing here.

He was 100% correct about Bernie

Imagine believing this when US and Israel have turned the Middle East into one gigantic bushfire and are busily adding more fuel to that fire. Meanwhile, America is gearing up for an unprecedented expansion of Africom as a Reconquista to deliver the continent away from the Chinese imperialists and back into the hands of the old colonialists.

This understanding of imperialism rests on nothing more then pure Luxemburgism and is only comprehensible if you read it that way.

Tell me more about those incubator babies.

there's plenty of autistic screeching on the left and you're still a leftist

You really think that we should support sudam merely because he was an enemy of america, despite the fact that the regime was a capitalist one? Literally nothing wrong with stating that either one isn't good. Furthermore, it's actually very consistent with anarchism and libertarian politics in general to say that we should not support statists, be they self proclaimed socialists or otherwise.

Saddam*

It's almost like I'm talking to a generic neocon.

Bookchin is pretty explicit in saying that neither side is right. This does not mean supporting the war which you seem to imply that it does

This is the same logic of british socialists who didn't care that Mussolini was colonizing Ethiopia because it was an empire so "just as bad", and with a historical hindsight that may not be there yet for the 80s and 90s you can see how ludicrous this position sounds now.

When a country that is a super power decides it can shape the fate of less powerful countries you don't get to play Both Sides-ism without effectively taking sides. Any US foreign policy can be justified on the basis that the target is morally dubious, above all because the US has the means to force its opponents into a corner, to spread lies (regarding Nicaragua, he believed a Reagan talking point that was since debunked, and much of the Gulf War propaganda was also debunked) or simply to force changes until the right target arrives. Socialists care about structures, not personalities, principles such as capitalism and imperialism are bad regardless of whether or not the people in its receiving end are perfect victims, and to abstain on the grounds that your morality impels you to see both sides as equal is to cynically pretend you don't grasp the deeper issues of every conflict just because it's convenient.

Do you believe the world would be more peaceful if the U.S abolished it's army?

The US military, intelligence and security are nothing but the most visible, outwards manifestations of a deeper global trend. If it accidently nuked itself away, some other country or union would take its place in forcibly integrating the weakest countries into the economic and financial arrangements that best allow global capitalism and capital accumulation. Like I said, certain trends are more important than individuals, and developing the proper checks to power no matter who it is is more important than stressing out over who's bad and who's good.

I am totally ok with Israel and Saudi Arabia and China existing. I have no problem with their existence. Whatsoever. The idea that I'm obligated to hate them for whatever reason is hilarious to me. No one from China has done anything bad to me. If anything I benefit from their culture and history. Hilarious that you people are so sensitive about not supporting Assad or supporting Israel. Its nonsense. They're all states, they're all equally bad. Norway is just as evil as Burgerstan

I think I remember from reading this:
there's more but its really unassailable. The only thing I dislike about Israel is their meddling in foreign policy in the West and their propensity to be dishonest with their allegiances. Other than that, they're a non-issue and people need to get over themselves.

"It is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism." - V. I. Lenin

Failing to see how that has anything to do with Lenin's theory of Imperialism.

This means literally nothing, stop relying on buzzwords, read Marx, and become an actual communist rather than a nationalist socdem.

That's exactly my point though, anti-imperialism today is only a choice between your preferred capitalists instead of arguing for a authentic communist alternative.

This would imply that politics is only worth getting involved in when the immediate creation of Communism is an option, and that's not really a position you want to adhere unless you want nothing but inaction coming from the Left.

We have the choice of two capitalists. In one choice, peace prevails under a national bourgeoisie that has to perpetually justify itself, people get enjoy some of the benefits of their natural resources, and their political economy will benefits its proletariat more than a foreign bourgeoisie. In the other, we have war that will probably leave at least a couple hundred thousand dead, and will lead to an entire people to lose its autonomy for the foreseeable future. The Tsar and the Kaiser being both monarchs don't make opposition to WW1 a question of no importance.

If the desire for a communist revolution makes this a difficult choice or makes you indifferent to this, then your communism is all the utopianism without roots in reality that liberals accuse us of.

Right, and this is exactly the what we should do - support communism, not "anti-imperialism". Any choice of the "lesser evil" (which is today supposedly only kleptocratic dictators of different variates, so lol at the idea the "people get enjoy some of the benefits") is only a choice of perpetuating this endless war.

Communists shouldn't discredit our movement with support for tyrants for "good guy" points that won't earn anything but a pat on the back from people who already support you (or hate you because your parties broke apart 20 years ago over a water cooler), do you seriously think any of the warring parties in the Syrian conflict gives a shit about what your 200 strong party believes?

Anti-imperialism is today neither an effective strategy for change, nor for positive visibility.

it's not like that's a small issue. that's the bone everyone who isn't some spooked stormfag has to pick with them.

That's actually a major problem with a lot of Humanistfags (including some LeftComms, anarcho-syndicalists, and even some Trots): they're so hellbent on creating a revolution internally (i.e. revolution is done by the peoples within a system like workers, rather than peoples "outside" the system like societal deviants, people who aren't affected by the dominant ideological apparatuses, and whatnot) that they're willing to support imperialism or other forms of repression in order to make said internal populations ripe for leftist ideology.

For example, some years back there was a Marxist Humanist group which came out in support of US imperialism in Afghanistan on the basis that wiping out the Taliban and establishing capitalism in the country would lead the Afghan people away from their Islamic mythologies and "backwards" ideologies and set them up for taking on socialism, as they'd no longer have religion or family to fall back on.

This is a smear-job on par with pointing out that Marx called Lasalle a nigger and thus concluding that he was a nazi or that his economic theories were somehow irrelevant.

Even if Bookchin supported both US and Israeli imperialism, that does not invalidate his criticism of the USSR, Marxism or his own original ideas.

Poisoning the well is not a good substitute for a argument.

That tendency, it should be added, extended to Marx and Engels themselves, who considered capitalism and the consolidation of nation-states historically progressive.

Yeah. To my knowledge, Engels supported civilizing missions even as they pertained to the "lesser" races of Europe (Basques, Bretons, Poles, Danes).

To be fair, Bakunin supported imperial Russia's "civilizing mission" in Central Asia. So yeah, anarchists aren't necessarily immune to this way of thinking either.

Not to mention some of the biggest proponents of "imperialism can be progressive in some cases" are Trotskyists with their theory of productive forces.

This. Ba'athism is to Arabs what Zionism is to Jews.

How would that have been worse than the situation we got?

fuckoff zionist

he's loved by americans and americans only for a reason

Wow, seriously the first thing I've read from Bookchin where he gets it 100% wrong. Zionism is an ethno-fascist cancer on this planet, no matter what has happened to jews in the past.

No, you are enablers and perpetuaters of imperialism by remaining silent in the face of global exploitation, killings and crimes against humanity.

Reminds me when Bordiga claimed that liberal democracy is just the same like literal fascism and ended up being thrown into prison. Global imperialism relies on very specific interconnected structures, interventionist wars to keep having access to oil price manipulation and petrodollar recycling is just one example of a superstructure for global capitalism. Dismantling these structures will lead to capitalism in crisis and a definitive accelerationist effect while simultaneously give the people's of the middle east self-determination.

To simply discard this because it doesn't immediately lead to a proclaimed goal is nothing but total disregard for the historical process and Dialectical Materialism. We that line of arguing we should have supported the Monarchist reaction during the French Revolution because of French nationalism.

Only someone with an entirely distorted view of history can come to such a hilarious conclusion. Ba'athism (at least the Assadist version) is - unlike Zionism - inclusive towards minorities. It liberates Christian and Jewish minorities from the Jizya and grants universal legal protection to non-Muslims. It's in its character secular, sees Islam as part of the culture and therefore breaks out of the theocratic deadlock which is typical for the formation of Muslim nation states since Islam doesn't know a distinction between religious and earthly government. All these things - besides being anti-colonialist in its structure - are not only not inherent in Zionism (which is a colonial movement), they are also progressive within the framework of the Middle East. A secular state with universal welfare might not be socialist but is highly preferable to whatever islamofascist soup the USA, Saudi-Arabia and Israel cook up.

Maybe in theory, but in practice in many radical leftist spaces "anti-imperialism" translates directly to just that.

This is not how things work.

As this thread demonstrates, there's plenty of "leftists" who consider that party line to be the "correct" one, unfortunately.

In your opinion, is the German conquest of Poland part of the German self-determination?

Seriously nobody gives a fuck about your ethno-state for the most muh privileged minority in the entire world. What about the Roma and Sinti? Should we give them nukes and an apartheid state as well?

How do you criticize mainline interpretations of anti imperialism as having a nationalist character(which is true to some extent) while acting like Jewish self determination is somehow important. What makes Jewish nationalism excusable?

Both of you are confusing self determination of an ethnic group with nationalism. Having autonomous self governing communities =/= nationalism

Israel deported the majority of its population into ghettos and the outback (Apartheid) and revels itself in religious symbolism and defines itself via the Jewish ethnicity (ethno-nationalism).