"Anti-imperialism" Swedish imperialist style
m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se
Fri Oct 11 16:47:32 MDT 1996
Doug got angry when I criticized him for ignoring the fact that Sweden was
and is an imperialist country:
>You're a vile idiot, Rodwell. There's no point in ever responding to
>another word of yours, or of your comrades-in-exile in Sweden, the
>ineffable Malecki and the radioactive Rolf. Bye.
That's the style. Politics all the way...
But it would better suit a journalist (and Doug is no yellow journalist
like Lunchtime Louis P, just his hanger-on) to get his factoids right.
Rolf isn't in exile. He's a native Swede.
I'm neither in exile nor a native Swede, just one of the dozens of millions
of democratically hobbled internal migrants in Europe.
Bob's in exile because he fought US imperialism on the home front during
the Vietnam war, and for him and others like him the war is still on. The
Calleys and Nixons and Kissingers of this world are all forgiven, and the
McNamaras are making a second (or third) career out of weeping crocodile
tears for the whole shebang, but Bob is still being punished. This is
shameful for the US imperialist regime, and even more shameful for the
neo-Stalinist wannabe "lefts" who attack Bob instead of the US state while
their logic drives to the conclusion that the Vietnamese should have
capitulated at the start of the war -- they lost anyway in the long run, so
their mad adventure just got their children burned up with Dow napalm to no
purpose. (Check the archives, under the heading Who won in Vietnam in
April 96 and Cold War in July 96.)
I'm no idiot. Neither is Doug. Our politics are very different, though.
This leads Doug to call me "vile".
I wouldn't even characterize Doug's politics as "vile". They're just not
much use. Broad Left neo-Stalinist centrism, non-commital agnosticism that
mostly refuses to take a position pleading ignorance.
As for his personality, I wouldn't know. On the positive side he's capable
of accepting logic and proof to some degree. He was quick to interview
Zeynep when Turkey was boiling over. On the negative side he seems to enjoy
having lunch with list lunchmeister Louis P.
Each to his own.
PS A couple of typical postings on the Vietnam question, from 4 April 96:
>Adam, you seem to be missing the point. The question on the table is what
>did the Vietnamese people win. True, they had an inspiring effect on the
>rest of the world and a (slight) curbing effect on US military adventurism.
>I imagine, however, they thought they were fighting for themselves as well,
>and not merely for a bunch of groupies in tie-dyed shirts. Although saying
>it makes me want to retch, since I consider what the US did to Vietnam the
>worst crime since you-know-what and the Vietnamese resistance one of the
>most amazing displays of courage and perseverance ever, it's clear now that
>they gained nothing. This is not to go back and second-guess their course
>of action, just a simple fact.
And much less aware of the implications of claiming a defeat for the Vietnamese:
>At 8:21 AM 4/4/96, Adam Rose wrote:
>>I can't understand how anyone could see the US defeat as anything
>>other than a major defeat for Imperialism.
>>Everyone at the time saw it as such, both pro and anti Imperialists.
>>The US was, and still is, afraid to commit its troops to a war where
>>there is a serious risk of large scale casualties. As soon as the US
>>does encounter such a risk, as in Somalia, it withdraws.
>As the man said, let's look at the record. The US destroyed the Nicaraguan
>revolution. Its enemy of over 70 years, the USSR, collapsed. China is
>embracing capitalism. Vietnam, one of the poorest countries in Asia,
>suffered for 20 years after its victory, and is now courting US oil
>companies and Coca-Cola. There is no force on earth that could challenge
>the US military right now. Perhaps for the first time in history, a true
>world market is upon us.
>With defeats like that, who needs victories?
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism