I would NEVER consider myself a leftist but I have friends onna left and I do have some sneaking (if pitying cos lost cause) affection for welfare socialist types. It is sad to see them get strung along by idiots who don't care a whit about them then accusing them of betrayal

So for example to nobody's surprise a couple of prominent "antiimperialists" in US & UK are fanboyz of Soviet imperialism. It'd be one thing if they liked Soviets, but they also pretend that Soviets carried out some civilizing mission that only nefarious McCarthyist West stopped

And now they are (for want of a better word) gaslighting e.g. Afghans/Chechens/others who felt the sting of Soviet imperialism and on nobody else's insistence are rightfully aggrieved thereby. This is where the limits of their self-styled internationalism become clear.

For them, the fact that US (and earlier capitalist empires)'s influence and power exceeds USSR's means that the latter are forever noble underdogs, whose flaws are not even flaws but at worst necessary "tough love" that was maligned by the capitalist propaganda.

And make nae mistake, it is true US (and others) often vilified Soviet/other commies even on false pretences (the idea of Soviet creeping influence in Africa, e.g., at the same time as West were neck-deep therein). That doesn't mean that Soviets were forever right/on right side

Soviet imperialism was not as far-reaching as Western imperialism (though in some cases far more brutal), but that doesn't make them forever-maligned underdogs who somehow presented a more palatable alternative to West.

The vast majority of say Afghans or Chechens or Hungarians etc who fought against Soviets were not provoked by West - in some cases, as in Afghanistan and Chechnya, they ended up being as much a headache for West as they had been for Soviets.

Western imperialism dwarfed Soviets' on a global level, but on a regional level Soviet imperialism was no better (and in some cases worse) to the people of Central Asia and Eastern Europe than is say US imperialism in Latin America or Euro imperialism in Africa.

Latin Am. tankies who love Stalin and Lenin cos they hate US remind me of the Eastern Europeans who loved Thatcher and Reaan at the end of the Cold War b/c they hated USSR. Both positions turn their own experience into a sectarianism that they project onto the globe at large.

if you support Russia in say Chechnya b/c you hate US b/c US wrecked Nicaragua, the LEAST you can do is own it rather than try to square circle of internationalism & therefore pretend that actually you do care abt Chechens and it's just US who are maligning innocent Russia.

irony ofc is that this is increasingly a false choice. Post-Cold War (and even in the late Cold War),West has had no compunctions with allying with Marxist types, particularly against anything smacking of "Islamic fundamentalism". same ones whom your fave antiimperialists LOVE

Most obvious current e.g. are Karkeran in Turkey and their wing in Syria. Both not only lionized as the perennial champions of "Da Kurds" by Washington thinktankers and Beltway commentators but have been provided with military/diplomatic cover for years as US' favoured proxy

People like your favourite antiimperialist ideologist Chomsky take an almost indiscernible line to US on this, arguing that yes US SHOULD support them b/c (based off their propaganda as women-liberating jihadi-killing secularists) they're the Only Decent People there.

Your poundshop antiimperialist-cum-Marxist podcaster and picket-organizer won't say a thing about this of course b/c they share the State Department's view, as does Chomsky, that these are the only forces of Progressiveness and Secularism in the region. In some cases they will

try to square circle of their wholescale agreement with imperialists they hate so much by pretending that instead it is Karkeran's opponents - "Turkish-backed jihadis cos they shouted Allahu Akbar" that it's them who are US proxies, using the most absurd "evidence"

There are many other examples. Afghanistan's an easy example. After US followed USSR suit in blundering into the morass on, among other, civilizational arguments, most of the left didn't object to this invasion but instead complained that US had helped insurgents against USSR.

with claims like "US made Talibans in 1980s" they implicitly accept that every Afghan chap with a turban is a Talib+hardcore WoT idea that therefore a Talib only merits cruel elimination. In effect, they accuse US only of coming "late" to its civilizational antiterrorism party

Bosnia/Kosovo are other examples. They were of course two very different campaigns insofar as Serb-chauvinists were given a free hand v Bosniaks b4 West marched in as saviour. Whereas Serbs' assault on Kosovo was cut off at the knee by a NATO that saw an opportunity to expand

In Bosnia's case, the Bosniak forces were both more explicitly "Islamic" (Izetbegovic) and amenable to intercommunal existence (since Bosnia is uber-mixed). In Kosovo there was long-standing current of ethnic irredentism leavened by periodic Yugoslav crackdowns over the decades

In Bosniak case, they were cut off (with tacit UN/Europe/and to an extent US approval) & basically butchered in 1000s before Serbs were pushed to bargaining table. In Kosovo case, no such large-scale slaughter took place partly b/c Serbs were immediately bombed senseless by NATO

(it's not clear that such slaughter was in the offing though you can hardly blame Kosovars for being fearful given their history and Belgrade's conduct in the 1990s). But my point is that Kosovo and Bosnia were very different cases, only common point being their antagonists

In Kosovar case, in fact, quite a few Kosovo nationalists were onetime socialists of either Yugoslav or Albanian persuasion, and quite a few had served with Croats in 1990s. This was, that is, very different to Bosnia case. But what was the antiimperialist left's interpretation?

their interpretation was because NATO helped Kosovars against Belgrade in 1999, Belgrade must be innocent. And b/c Belgrade must be innocent, its crimes against Bosniaks must be lies. And b/c they must be lies, thus Belgrade line that Bosniaks were sectarian fanatics must be true

And b/c that must be true, same must be true of Kosovars (who like Bosniaks are mostly Muslims). And b/c that must be true of Kosovars whom NATO helped, it must be true of the Bosniaks. And b/c it must be true of Bosniaks, in effect West helped Bosniaks. None of which was true

but it's been a staggering resilient myth that is popular not only on the left but also increasingly the right (with their idea that globalism is trying to Islamicize Christian Europe). This is absurd fantasy riddled with contradictions but it's VERY popular on Left just because.

Other case studies: Yankees' premier pals in Pakistan have at least since 2007 been same "progressive" People's Party (hardly leftists but generally viewed fondly by the left) who explicitly promised to cover up their WoT campaigns in NW Pak and even asked their help against army

Because they are nominally progressive though (never mind the party being staffed to the rafters with feudal elites), Telesur no less than CNN has hailed them as much-maligned, progressive, up-against-it lefties trying to make it in a world hostile to the left. Facts can go hang.

Sudan is another major example. The Yanks (and Israelis, and Ethiopians among others) even in the late Cold War backed against Khartoum various veterans of Marxist politics - most famously and effectively John Garang, but also less successfully somebody like Abdel-Wahid Nour

And of course McCarthyist Cold Warriors might have painted Mandela and Lumumba as fuming Soviet-backed commies, but they were nothing of the sort. Despite this, some African antiimperialists feel compelled to defend Soviets cos hey they weren't Europe/US.

Point is: if you're from say Nicaragua or Cuba or for that matter Mozambique and you hate US/UK for its depredations in your part of the world - don't pretend that non-US depredations didn't take place in other parts of the world. You can either acknowledge both OR conversely

admit that your people's problems at the hands of Yanquees and Brits are a bigger priority to you and thus you don't really care about non-Western depredations. But if that's the case don't call yourself an internationalist and own your regionalism. Fin.