Todd Archer quoted:
> >OK, my position is that "the left," by which I mean
> >self-identified leftists living mostly in Western
> >countries, often has a tendency to see things through
> >the lens of an anti-imperialist framework inherited I
> >suppose from Lenin and then modified through the
> >20th-century.
Major corrections have had to be made to the theory of imperialism as developed by Lenin, Luxemburg, & others in the early and mid-20th century. But the core of their analysis remains absolutely solid, and is the necessary point of departure for any understanding of the world today. Jim Devine put it very well earlier today:
****To my mind, the major correct point in Lenin's theory of imperialism is that it sees it as a _social system_ (rather than a policy of elites). That doesn't say that the "oppressors" are always bad and that the "oppressed" are always good.****
I would modify this a bit. Oppression is seldom 'good' for people, and the oppressed are often anything but 'good' themselves. But _the_ locus of struggle in the world to day is against imperialism as presently embodied in u.s. imperialism, and any opposition to that power, however internally defective or externally vicious that opposition may be, is to be encouraged and supported.
Specifically -- the anti-imperialist forces in the mid-east and central asia today are pretty unpleasant. That is irrelevant to the position leftists in the u.s. must take to u.s. aggression there. We oppose it in every way possible. Period. I don't have the slightest idea what political struggles will follow u.s. withdrawal from the mideast and Afghanistan and the overthrow of all u.s. allies in the area by internal forces. I only know that nothing that happens there can be worse than occupation by the u.s. or its local allies, and that something better can be achieved only in the absence of u.s. power.
Carrol