Re: "Humanitarian Intervention in Congo" continues "Socialist command-type"

[Hari Kumar <hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I was being lazy.
In actual fact what CB actually said was this:
"the UK would contribute forces to an intervention led by French forces
(a bit of spin
here?) into north east Congo. I suggest it is very hard to protest
against such an intervention as being
reactionary even though the pay off for imperialism is that it creates
propaganda for the interventionist politics. As in west Africa it
appears that the bodies of armed men, which every
society needs, in north east Congo now consist of small groups with
communal hatreds between them. In such a context which is extremely
damaging for any sort of unity of working people, super-imperialism is
more progressive than the political economy of war-lordism, since the
weak
bourgeois national state structures have failed to maintain a minimum
social peace."
COMMENT:
This sort of harks back to an earlier mild exchange with James D & Ian
Murray entitled "Find it Very hard to believe". Clearly a deeper
analysis that that earlier exchange is required. But the sort of
implications that CB gives rise to are fairly deeply, pro-imperialist.
Sorry Chris - but a spade is sometimes a spade. For example, if this
intervention is right as CB says - on the grounds of "humanitarianism" -
why wasn't the NATO attack on the Balkans; or indeed, the USA on Iraq.
The chain of earlier imperialist events (predating Lumumba's
assassination) in the region - will always allow a potential for
'divide-and-rule' - with the excuse of "humanitarian" interventions.
This type of reasoning was used to justify imperial incursions
everywhere, although in an earlier Victorian era - not dressed up in
modern day liberal words. Instead of 'humanitarianism" - the Victorians
called it 'civilizing". Again I commend the picture of Victoria regally
handing a Bible to a wog Rajah stretched at her feet - in the Nat
Portrait Gallery London - epitomising this world view.
H