PSL: Oppose any form of imperialist intervention in Syria!

[Kassad]

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/assets/images/website/logo-liberation.png

Oppose any form of imperialist intervention in Syria: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/oppose-intervention-vs-syria.html


As revolutionaries in the United States, our main tasks are to expose the imperialist character of our ruling class’s propaganda towards Syria, oppose sanctions, and struggle against another military intervention. The future of Syria is to be decided by the Syrian people, not by imperialist vultures. U.S. hands off Syria!

[Threetune]

“Hands off Syria” is a pretty passive slogan. "Defeat US aggression in Syria" would be revolutionary.

[Sword and Shield]

“Hands off Syria” is a pretty passive slogan. "Defeat US aggression in Syria" would be revolutionary.

The PSL is American. They have to try to stop the aggression from happening in the first place, by saying "Hands off Syria."

[Kuppo Shakur]

Good Stuff.

“Hands off Syria” is a pretty passive slogan. "Defeat US aggression in Syria" would be revolutionary.
Psh, maybe next time you can write the article.:rolleyes:

[Threetune]

Good Stuff.

Psh, maybe next time you can write the article.:rolleyes: OK invite me to.

[Kassad]

Why don't you use the "send us your thoughts" option? You can comment on articles and comments are read by our editorial board who take comments into consideration for future articles. Scroll to the bottom of the article and there's a comment box.

[Threetune]

Why don't you use the "send us your thoughts" option? You can comment on articles and comments are read by our editorial board who take comments into consideration for future articles. Scroll to the bottom of the article and there's a comment box.

Thanks for that. I will.
Cheers

[caramelpence]

There is a lot to criticize in this article, which, like almost everything the PSL produces, is utter trash. Their characterization of the Syrian bourgeoisie as a "national bourgeoisie" is problematic as it carries the implication that the Syrian bourgeoisie is sufficiently unfettered by imperialism and its own class interests vis-a-vis the Syrian working class to be able to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, like national unification and well-rounded economic development. There is little or no evidence to suggest that the Syrian bourgeoisie meets this description, given the continued Israeli presence in the Golan Heights, which means that the national aspect of the bourgeois-democratic revolution has not been completed even in the most formal sense, and the persistence of the social and economic problems that have come to be common throughout the region due to development being conducted only in an uneven and fragmented way, such as the poor condition of basic infrastructure. What makes the description of the Syrian bourgeoisie as a "national bourgeoisie" even more puzzling is that the article itself recognizes just how tied to imperialism the Syrian ruling class is, by pointing to Syria's role in supporting US intervention in the first Gulf War. From a more historical standpoint, the article's description of the Ba'ath as the left wing of the nationalist movement completely ignores the the conditions in which the Ba'ath came to power, that is, the mistakes made by the official Communist Parties throughout the region, such as their Soviet-sponsored support for Zionism, as well as the brutal repression that was then directed against progressive forces in both Iraq and Syria under their respective Ba'ath regimes. This is, again, ironic for a Brezhnevite party like the PSL, because one of the defining ideological features of the Ba'ath during the 60s was their anti-Sovietism.

Perhaps most laughable, however, is how this article speaks in terms of "the sentiments of the Syrian people as a whole". What kind of an allegedly Marxist organization uses such a populist or liberal term as "people as a whole" as a substitute for rigorous class analysis? Surely a basic foundation of any Marxist sociological or historical analysis has to be the recognition that genuine universality or community is impossible under capitalism and other forms of class-society because those societies are riven by structural forms of conflict, in the form of class antagonisms? Again and again the same term is used - "the people". A Marxist analysis this is not. A Marxist analysis would proceed from an empirical analysis of Syria's material relationships, including the major forms of industry, the centers of population, the ethnic composition of the working class, the role of the state in the economic sphere and civil society, and then, having established this empirical basis, would seek to understand how those material relationships condition cultural, social, and political life.

[Threetune]

[QUOTE=caramelpence;2095851]There is a lot to criticize in this article, which, like almost everything the PSL produces, is utter trash. ....QUOTE]



Brilliant, you managed to respond to this without once mentioning the capitalist world economic crisis behind all mayhem on the planet or the need to defeat US imperialist interference. Got your mark.

[Terminator X]

A Marxist analysis would proceed from an empirical analysis of Syria's material relationships, including the major forms of industry, the centers of population, the ethnic composition of the working class, the role of the state in the economic sphere and civil society, and then, having established this empirical basis, would seek to understand how those material relationships condition cultural, social, and political life.

...and the person reading this hypothetical article would have fallen asleep an hour ago.

[Devrim]

Er...I don't really think there is going to be any form of imperialist intervention in Syria, but by all means oppose it anyway.

Devrim

[Kassad]

Er...I don't really think there is going to be any form of imperialist intervention in Syria, but by all means oppose it anyway.

Devrim

I heard these exact words regarding Libya. It seems a lot of people on here underestimate imperialism.

[Kassad]

Recent developments have shown that the PSL was one of the only organizations to provide a legitimate class analysis of the situation in the Middle East. That's also why pseudo-revolutionaries like yourself are talking with their foot in their mouth. So please, write up this comprehensive analysis. As stated before, the PSL is not the one who fetishizes people's uprisings wherever they arise.

So basically, caramelpence: keep talking. No one's listening.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Perhaps most laughable, however, is how this article speaks in terms of "the sentiments of the Syrian people as a whole".

I don't know enough about Syria to comment in-depth about the conditions there, but I do agree on this specific point.

[DaringMehring]

There is a lot to criticize in this article, which, like almost everything the PSL produces, is utter trash. Their characterization of the Syrian bourgeoisie as a "national bourgeoisie" is problematic as it carries the implication that the Syrian bourgeoisie is sufficiently unfettered by imperialism and its own class interests vis-a-vis the Syrian working class to be able to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, like national unification and well-rounded economic development. There is little or no evidence to suggest that the Syrian bourgeoisie meets this description, given the continued Israeli presence in the Golan Heights, which means that the national aspect of the bourgeois-democratic revolution has not been completed even in the most formal sense, and the persistence of the social and economic problems that have come to be common throughout the region due to development being conducted only in an uneven and fragmented way, such as the poor condition of basic infrastructure. What makes the description of the Syrian bourgeoisie as a "national bourgeoisie" even more puzzling is that the article itself recognizes just how tied to imperialism the Syrian ruling class is, by pointing to Syria's role in supporting US intervention in the first Gulf War. From a more historical standpoint, the article's description of the Ba'ath as the left wing of the nationalist movement completely ignores the the conditions in which the Ba'ath came to power, that is, the mistakes made by the official Communist Parties throughout the region, such as their Soviet-sponsored support for Zionism, as well as the brutal repression that was then directed against progressive forces in both Iraq and Syria under their respective Ba'ath regimes. This is, again, ironic for a Brezhnevite party like the PSL, because one of the defining ideological features of the Ba'ath during the 60s was their anti-Sovietism.

Perhaps most laughable, however, is how this article speaks in terms of "the sentiments of the Syrian people as a whole". What kind of an allegedly Marxist organization uses such a populist or liberal term as "people as a whole" as a substitute for rigorous class analysis? Surely a basic foundation of any Marxist sociological or historical analysis has to be the recognition that genuine universality or community is impossible under capitalism and other forms of class-society because those societies are riven by structural forms of conflict, in the form of class antagonisms? Again and again the same term is used - "the people". A Marxist analysis this is not. A Marxist analysis would proceed from an empirical analysis of Syria's material relationships, including the major forms of industry, the centers of population, the ethnic composition of the working class, the role of the state in the economic sphere and civil society, and then, having established this empirical basis, would seek to understand how those material relationships condition cultural, social, and political life.

I didn't read the article; so I won't comment except to say that much of what you say sounds true based on the history of the PSL supporting Ahmadinejad/Kim/Gaddafis, BUT the article cannot be "utter trash" because the leader



As revolutionaries in the United States, our main tasks are to expose the imperialist character of our ruling class’s propaganda towards Syria, oppose sanctions, and struggle against another military intervention. The future of Syria is to be decided by the Syrian people, not by imperialist vultures. U.S. hands off Syria!


is quite legitimate. Our ruling class puts out all kind of propaganda trying to cloak its pillage in morality, and we should always oppose this. Even with some piece of garbage like Saddam, they nonetheless lied relentlessly in their war drive. We expose their lies not to support Saddam or whoever (which unfortunately the PSL usually appears to do as well) but to show that our bourgeoisie are lying murderers.

[Devrim]

Recent developments have shown that the PSL was one of the only organizations to provide a legitimate class analysis of the situation in the Middle East.

The idea that the PSL has a class analysis is actually quite amusing. The PSL barely even mention class in their analysis of the Middle East.

Carmelpence has it exactly right when he brings this up:


Perhaps most laughable, however, is how this article speaks in terms of "the sentiments of the Syrian people as a whole". What kind of an allegedly Marxist organization uses such a populist or liberal term as "people as a whole" as a substitute for rigorous class analysis?

If you compare it with our piece on what is going on in the region, you could see what a class analysis is: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2011/04/middle-east-libya-egypt-class-struggle-and-civil-war


I heard these exact words regarding Libya. It seems a lot of people on here underestimate imperialism.

I don't think they came from me though. I think there are two differences. First the Western powers are even more stretched than they were before the Libyan intervention, but more importantly I don't think that they want to destabilize Syria. It isn't in their interests.

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

I didn't read the article; so I won't comment except to say that much of what you say sounds true based on the history of the PSL supporting Ahmadinejad/Kim/Gaddafis, BUT the article cannot be "utter trash" because the leader

As revolutionaries in the United States, our main tasks are to expose the imperialist character of our ruling class’s propaganda towards Syria, oppose sanctions, and struggle against another military intervention. The future of Syria is to be decided by the Syrian people, not by imperialist vultures. U.S. hands off Syria!

is quite legitimate. Our ruling class puts out all kind of propaganda trying to cloak its pillage in morality, and we should always oppose this. Even with some piece of garbage like Saddam, they nonetheless lied relentlessly in their war drive. We expose their lies not to support Saddam or whoever (which unfortunately the PSL usually appears to do as well) but to show that our bourgeoisie are lying murderers.


This.

I certainly wouldn't write-off the PSL. One of the PSL's positive points is indeed its serious stance on anti-imperialism, which unfortunately some Western-centric socialists don't really appreciate, since to be frank they don't know what it is like to be on the receiving end of imperialism.

Having said this, the PSL does make a lot of mistakes in some of its analyses of events. For instance on contemporary China, the PSL does not mention people like Zhao Dongmin, (reformist Maoist lawyer who was imprisoned for his trade union work) incidents like the Foxconn suicides or the recent truck driver's strikes in Shanghai. While I appreciate the PSL's geopolitical analysis on contemporary China, it does not do a good job in terms of an internal analysis of China. It's almost as if in the PSL's eyes, the welfare and rights of poor Chinese workers must be sacrificed in order to defend the Chinese nation and state against Western imperialism, like how people argue it was "necessary" for labourers to die in order to construct the Great Wall of China to defend the country against nomadic invaders from the north.

[manic expression]

The idea that the PSL has a class analysis is actually quite amusing. The PSL barely even mention class in their analysis of the Middle East.
It's very much a class analysis. Some excerpts:

Syria’s regime can be characterized as bourgeois-nationalist, which means that it stands for the country’s independence, but is organized along capitalist lines.

(snip)

By standing for the country’s independence and stopping imperialism from extracting its resources, the national bourgeoisie can facilitate development—a development that would not have been possible had the resources disappeared into the hands of imperialist capital. But bourgeois national forces are, at the same time, reactionary insofar as they stand against the political ascension of the working class. To the extent such nationalism is built on cross-class ethnic unity, they often take a chauvinist approach towards internal minorities as well.

You should also bear in mind the fact that pointing out the position of imperialism in relation to recent events is class analysis.


If you compare it with our piece on what is going on in the region, you could see what a class analysis is: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2011/04/middle-east-libya-egypt-class-struggle-and-civil-warYou should rename the article "Understanding the period without considering imperialism". It'd be a more fitting title.

[Lyev]

Syria’s regime can be characterized as bourgeois-nationalist, which means that it stands for the country’s independence, but is organized along capitalist lines.I think the contention of groups like the ICC is that a "country's independence" can only ever be organised along "capitalist" lines -- not left-wing nationalism or a class collaboration between a 'progressive' bourgeoisie and a particularly oppressed peasantry and working class etc. Maybe also that nationalism is always inherently bourgeois, and that only class unites workers on international lines, not race, country or ethnicity.

[Devrim]

But bourgeois national forces are, at the same time, reactionary insofar as they stand against the political ascension of the working class. To the extent such nationalism is built on cross-class ethnic unity, they often take a chauvinist approach towards internal minorities as well. .

Which is one of the three mentions of workers or the working class in the entire article. people can draw their own conclusions.

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

I think the contention of groups like the ICC is that a "country's independence" can only ever be organised along "capitalist" lines -- not left-wing nationalism or a class collaboration between a 'progressive' bourgeoisie and a particularly oppressed peasantry and working class etc. Maybe also that nationalism is always inherently bourgeois, and that only class unites workers on international lines, not race, country or ethnicity.

But for some reason some socialists in the West don't apply this principle of theirs to bourgeois national separatist movements in places like Tibet and Xinjiang. They would apply a double standard and denounce Chinese nationalism against Western imperialism on the one hand, yet support Tibetan and Uyghur ethnic separatism against the PRC on the other.

At least be consistent. The CWI is better than many other Western Trotskyist groups on this issue, (such as the SWP, who explicitly supports Tibetan independence) because at least your organisation calls for solidarity between Han and non-Han workers in China, and states that China breaking-up will not be a good thing objectively speaking for the working class, rather than explicitly supporting ethnic separatism.

[caramelpence]

...and the person reading this hypothetical article would have fallen asleep an hour ago.

I suppose it depends on whether you see communism as a marketing exercise or not. If you think that the role of a party and a newspaper is to "sell" communism to workers and that revolutionaries need to do "outreach" as Kassad puts it then of course, you should place a premium on making articles that are light on analysis and orientated more towards catchy and daring slogans. If you think that communism is not something that is sold to the working class but is implicit in the working class itself as a historic product, and that the role of revolutionaries is therefore to crystallize interests and perspectives that are embodied in the immediate practice and consciousness of the class itself, then you will see why a detailed analysis is more important, amongst other conclusions. Given these premises, the PSL is best likened to a dodgy second-hand car salesman - all rhetoric, no substance.


Recent developments have shown that the PSL was one of the only organizations to provide a legitimate class analysis of the situation in the Middle East. That's also why pseudo-revolutionaries like yourself are talking with their foot in their mouth. So please, write up this comprehensive analysis. As stated before, the PSL is not the one who fetishizes people's uprisings wherever they arise.

Thanks again for the empty sloganeering and rhetoric. I should point out that I'm not the member of any organization but I also think that there's nothing problematic or hypocritical at all about socialists changing their position on a movement as it develops and changes in character. If the PSL opposed the Libyan rebels from the beginning then that doesn't make them analytically superior or more r-r-r-revolutionary than anyone who initially supported the rebels and has since changed their position, because it's entirely appropriate that our political positions change in response to events. It is, again, ironic that someone like yourself from an essentially Stalinist party should make this kind of argument because the official Communist Parties were frequently forced to make abrupt changes in their positions as a result of the changing stance of the Soviet Union. For example, during the period 1939-1941, the official Communist Parties in Europe and throughout the world were made to change from characterizing the Second World War as an inter-imperialist conflict to lauding the war as a just conflict in defense of the Soviet Union, which frequently amounted in practical terms to stopping industrial unrest and parties supporting the war efforts of their respective bourgeois governments. Personally speaking, I think that what needs to be done in the Libyan case is not to give support to Gaddafi (a la the PSL) or to support the imperialist-backed war effort of "the rebels" - instead, there's a need to tease out the contradictions and divisions within the rebel bloc. But that would demand a level of intelligence beyond the capacity of the PSL.


You should rename the article "Understanding the period without considering imperialism". It'd be a more fitting title.

What actually is imperialism, in your view? The PSL frequently talks as if it's a self-conscious actor that rationally seeks to invade countries.

Whilst not a Left Communist, I agree with the user Devrim in that I don't see an occupation of Syria as very likely.

[manic expression]

Which is one of the three mentions of workers or the working class in the entire article. people can draw their own conclusions.
Quality over quantity.

But leave it to the left-communist to put mere quantity as their priority. The irony tickles me.


What actually is imperialism, in your view? The PSL frequently talks as if it's a self-conscious actor that rationally seeks to invade countries.
Of course imperialism seeks to invade countries when it is deemed a necessary step. Do you deny this?

Anyway, this is imperialism (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm), in my view. Read up.


If you think that communism is not something that is sold to the working class but is implicit in the working class itself as a historic product, and that the role of revolutionaries is therefore to crystallize interests and perspectives that are embodied in the immediate practice and consciousness of the class itself, then you will see why a detailed analysis is more important, amongst other conclusions. Given these premises, the PSL is best likened to a dodgy second-hand car salesman - all rhetoric, no substance.
You, clearly, are all lies, no argument. The PSL's analysis is detailed and is thorough. Nothing you've even attempted to say has proven otherwise, and instead you resort to cheap slander. Perhaps if you understood the class position of care salesmen you wouldn't so absurdly misapply the analogy.

And for those keeping score, caramelpence's ground-shaking contribution to the issue is that imperialism doesn't like to invade things.

[caramelpence]

Of course imperialism seeks to invade countries when it is deemed a necessary step. Do you deny this?

Anyway, this is imperialism, in my view. Read up.

Simply linking to a popular pamphlet by Lenin doesn't really clarify matters or support any position. Even if we accept to begin with that Lenin's analysis of imperialism is a valid one, when there are good reasons to believe that there are serious problems with much of what Lenin has to say, then the issue remains that his characterization of imperialism is that it is a stage in the development of capitalism, and that this stage exhibits a number of important attributes pertaining to the structure and operation of the most advanced capitalist economies, such as the merging of bank and industrial capital, the export of capital, and so on. To the extent that Lenin provides a strict definition of imperialism, this is it, and it is not one that characterizes imperialism as a certain kind of policy, or as an autonomous actor, but one that seeks to situate imperialism in the historic trajectory of capitalist society. Given Lenin's approach, what sense does it make to say that "imperialism does this and that", as if imperialism is some kind of actor with a consciousness of its interests? In what way does this have anything to do with Lenin's historical analysis of imperialism, which takes imperialism to be a way of describing a definite phase of capitalist development, and has the capitalist world-system (rather than individual countries and governments) as one of the main objects of analysis?

I disagree with the basic way in which you approach questions of imperialism. It seems to be theoretically weak to begin with talk of imperialism invading other countries, or to consider imperialism only in terms of the policies of the US ruling class, when the first step, following Lenin and Luxemburg, has to be a study of capitalism as a historically-conditioned world system characterized by combined and uneven development.


Nothing you've even attempted to say has proven otherwise

I posed a series of more specific criticisms in my previous post that you're welcome to engage with.


Perhaps if you understood the class position of care salesmen you wouldn't so absurdly misapply the analogy

Maybe the term isn't used in the same way in the part of the US where you live, but likening something or someone to a used car salesman is generally a way of suggesting that they're untrustworthy or superficial in some way, and that's why I used the analogy, not to make a point about class position.

[Sword and Shield]

But for some reason some socialists in the West don't apply this principle of theirs to bourgeois national separatist movements in places like Tibet and Xinjiang. They would apply a double standard and denounce Chinese nationalism against Western imperialism on the one hand, yet support Tibetan and Uyghur ethnic separatism against the PRC on the other.

At least be consistent. The CWI is better than many other Western Trotskyist groups on this issue, (such as the SWP, who explicitly supports Tibetan independence) because at least your organisation calls for solidarity between Han and non-Han workers in China, and states that China breaking-up will not be a good thing objectively speaking for the working class, rather than explicitly supporting ethnic separatism.

Those Western socialists probably praised the dismantling of Yugoslavia too.

[agnixie]

Those Western socialists probably praised the dismantling of Yugoslavia too.

Since you guys are fond of bringing up Yugoslavia at every turn, has any of you read Tucovic's Serbia & Albania?
Yugoslavia in 1990 was not the Federal Socialist Republic, it had been subverted to hell by serbian nationalists and was at the beck and call of the IMF.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yugoslavia in 1990 was not the Federal Socialist Republic, it had been subverted to hell by serbian nationalists and was at the beck and call of the IMF.


That may be true to some extent, but objectively the break-up of Yugoslavia was still a negative event, since it caused the deaths of a large number of innocent workers from all ethnicities. If the workers of the various ethnicities in Yugoslavia could have united together to re-build the socialist republic in the genuine sense rather than listen to the reactionary agitation of their own nationalists, then this kind of tragedy would have been avoided.

Regarding the PRC today, despite its hyper-deformed status, I explicitly oppose bourgeois separatist forces that promote Tibetan and Uyghur independence, just like I oppose Han bourgeois nationalists that wish to transform China into a capitalist empire on par with those of the West. What people need is working class unity across ethnic boundaries. Ethnic separatism and ethnic chauvinism alike is a bourgeois political line.

According to the economic principle of the "economy of scale", the smaller a particular national economy is, the weaker it would be. This is one reason why socialism believes that the entire world should basically be a single nation, a single socialist republic. This would increase the "economy of scale" and make the planned economy more effective.

Marxism is fundamentally internationalist. Earth is basically one nation, and Marxists should not support any kind of ethnic separatism which would break-up existing states (which would objectively cause more poverty and suffering for workers) unless there is a really good reason to do so.

The United States is the home of Western imperialism and arguably the most reactionary force in the world today, but I still wouldn't explicitly support ethnic separatism such as black nationalism in the US today.

[RadioRaheem84]

Since you guys are fond of bringing up Yugoslavia at every turn, has any of you read Tucovic's Serbia & Albania?
Yugoslavia in 1990 was not the Federal Socialist Republic, it had been subverted to hell by serbian nationalists and was at the beck and call of the IMF.

You guys even attribute the same bullshit, you support Milosevic, line to things past. I dont being supportive of Yugoslavia against blatant imperialism meant being pro-Milosevic.

Again this is the main point you gus keep ignoring in order to sound more principled in your stances.

[agnixie]

You guys even attribute the same bullshit, you support Milosevic, line to things past. I dont being supportive of Yugoslavia against blatant imperialism meant being pro-Milosevic.

Again this is the main point you gus keep ignoring in order to sound more principled in your stances.

I didn't say you supported Milosevic, I said the idea that Yugoslavia was not deep into western pockets at the time it broke apart is a myth.

Cut the strawmen at once, damnit.

As a sidenote - Trotsky documented the Balkans wars, and I'd say after two attempted genocides, the Albanians had quite reasonable grievances. Was Yugoslavia a good idea? Yes and no. Yugoslavia WAS a romantic ethnic nationalist state based out of the bullshit idea that croats and serbs would unite because of language. It had nothing to do with internationalism. Yes post ww2 Yugoslavia was a good idea (although Albania should have joined it, if only because it would have avoided the bullshit regarding Kosovo and the Polog region and would have been a counter to Serbia by sheer numbers) in that it tried to curb this (and was virulently opposed to all nationalist groups in the union. But that was only Tito's lifetime, so obviously something failed even before NATO exploited the cracks.

[Red_Struggle]

Dude, this totally needs its own thread.

[agnixie]

Dude, this totally needs its own thread.

Apologies for taking the derail bait.

[Omsk]

:( angixie you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The same Albanians that slaughtered the people of Yugoslavia alongside the Ustase Hitlerite collaborators?

The Yugoslav war is a complicated,grim and sad war,it was a civil war,and all of the sides are to blame,so i urge you not to mention the example of Yugoslavia so carelessly,just to support your weak arguments,you idiots.

[agnixie]

:( angixie you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The same Albanians that slaughtered the people of Yugoslavia alongside the Ustase Hitlerite collaborators?

The Yugoslav war is a complicated,grim and sad war,it was a civil war,and all of the sides are to blame,so i urge you not to mention the example of Yugoslavia so carelessly,just to support your weak arguments,you idiots.

Yes, I do have a clue, I did read up on the matter, actual sources, not western propaganda. Tucovic and Trotsky, especially, who you can't exactly pretend are albanian nationalists, are good for background.

Are you one of those idiots who think the Chetnik resisted more than two months? Division Skanderbeg was even considered a failure because of the massive desertion and their getting kicked around by partisans in Yugoslavia and Albania, the country was under italian occupation. Ultimately, it's a non sequitur in context: every balkans nation had a spate of collaborators.

And I'm not the one bringing up Yugoslavia constantly.

[Omsk]

Are you one of those idiots who think the Chetnik resisted more than two months? Division Skanderbeg was undermanned all the time and spent most of the war fighting Albanian partisans, the country was under italian occupation.
What Chetniks?Do you have any idea what you are talking about?


Division Skanderbeg was undermanned all the time
Still had about 6000 people who commited a lot of crimes.


war fighting Albanian partisans

No.These pigs mostly looted and maimed Serb and Albanian civilians and their villages,in search of loot,and food.

[agnixie]

What Chetniks?Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Chetnik, resistance organization formed in Serbia in 1941, except resisting and not killing communists and bosniaks (and before you ramble about the Handschar, yes I also know about them, like I said in my edit, every Balkans nation had its spate of collaborators and partisans) was too hard so they started fighting the partisans instead and by 42 they were fighting hand in hand with germany.




Still had about 6000 people who commited a lot of crimes.

Belgrade was proclaimed Judenfrei, the SS Serbian volunteer corps had about that many people and wasn't disbanded for insubordination, and that's not even starting to count the people who joined Nedic's army when the Chetnik split over whether to go Quisling or to fight against the germans.



No.These pigs mostly looted and maimed Serb and Albanian civilians and their villages,in search of loot,and food.
Same basic principle, they were acting like SS

EDIT - Also if you really want to talk about that stuff, we should have the thread in history, thanks.

[Omsk]

Chetnik, resistance organization formed in Serbia in 1941, except resisting and not killing communists and bosniaks (and before you ramble about the Handschar, yes I also know about them, like I said in my edit, every Balkans nation had its spate of collaborators and partisans) was too hard so they started fighting the partisans instead and by 42 they were fighting hand in hand with germany.
I know who the Chetniks were....


Belgrade was proclaimed Judenfrei, the SS Serbian volunteer corps had about that many people and wasn't disbanded for insubordination, and that's not even starting to count the people who joined Nedic's army when the Chetnik split over whether to go Quisling or to fight against the germans.
Nedic was unpopular and the Chetniks were somewhat despised buy a big number of citizens,the partisans,on the other hand,were much more popular,and the Serb partisans are among those who died the most.You do also know that Judenfrei Belgrade had a number of concentration camps in which both Jews and Serbs were killed by the Hitlerite bastards who invaded the country?


Same basic principle, they were acting like SS
What is your point?

[agnixie]

What is your point?

That blaming the Albanians for Skanderbeg and glorifying the Serbs for their partisan contribution ignores that there were ten times more Albanians in the partisans, and the Chetniks. It's also not what my point was - collective punishment is bullshit, whether inflicted by NATO or not. Want to have a go at this history thing?

[Omsk]

that there were ten times more Albanians in the partisans and the Chetniks
Albanians in the Chetniks...Find me proof that there were a lot of Albanians in the Chetniks.


glorifying the Serbs for their partisan contribution

I was not glorifying the Serbian partisans,although they do deserve the best of words,alongside the Croatian,and Bosnian partisans.

[agnixie]

Albanians in the Chetniks...Find me proof that there were a lot of Albanians in the Chetniks.


No, that was me failing at punctuation.

I meant "that there were ten times more Albanians in the partisans, and the Chetniks"

[Omsk]

So you are saying that there were Albanian Chetniks?I don't think that is true.The Albanians were very anti-Serb and anti-Yugoslav.(anti Yugoslav monarchy)

[agnixie]

So you are saying that there were Albanian Chetniks?I don't think that is true.The Albanians were very anti-Serb and anti-Yugoslav.(anti Yugoslav monarchy)

No, I'm not saying there were albanian chetnik.
Well okay maybe there were a few, who knows, there have been stranger things during that war :/

[Omsk]

Well,that is my point all along - Yugoslavia during WW2 was a weird mess,and all of the sides had their collaborators and traitors,who should have all paid for their crimes.
The same goes for the modern Yugoslav wars.

[Lyev]

But for some reason some socialists in the West don't apply this principle of theirs to bourgeois national separatist movements in places like Tibet and Xinjiang. They would apply a double standard and denounce Chinese nationalism against Western imperialism on the one hand, yet support Tibetan and Uyghur ethnic separatism against the PRC on the other.

At least be consistent. The CWI is better than many other Western Trotskyist groups on this issue, (such as the SWP, who explicitly supports Tibetan independence) because at least your organisation calls for solidarity between Han and non-Han workers in China, and states that China breaking-up will not be a good thing objectively speaking for the working class, rather than explicitly supporting ethnic separatism.I was attempting to state the position that others on the left might argue from. Not my own position. I am not fully decided on how I view 'national liberation' struggles, so I take to opportunity in threads like this to probe around to check out what other comrades have to say on the subject. And, anyway, since you bought this up in another thread, I do not have to uniformly tow the line on every CWI position, nor do I probably fully represent the organisation, uniformly, in every single aspect and on every single issue.

[Queercommie Girl]

I was attempting to state the position that others on the left might argue from. Not my own position. I am not fully decided on how I view 'national liberation' struggles, so I take to opportunity in threads like this to probe around to check out what other comrades have to say on the subject.


"National liberation" isn't unconditional. I don't reject Tibetan independence in principle, but the empirical situation on the ground is that the majority of ordinary Tibetans today don't actually support independence, and objectively China breaking-up isn't a good thing for the working classes of the various ethnicities, if you look at the previous cases of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.

The majority of Tibetans would only explicitly campaign for independence if they were really influenced by political agitation from bourgeois ethnic separatists. My essential political position on this issue is that genuine socialists should not join into the camp of the bourgeois ethnic separatist political agitators, but rather should call for a socialist movement based on multi-ethnic solidarity among all working peoples and peasants.



And, anyway, since you bought this up in another thread, I do not have to uniformly tow the line on every CWI position, nor do I probably fully represent the organisation, uniformly, in every single aspect and on every single issue.

I'm not saying you should tow the party line. I'm just saying that I think the CWI party line actually makes more sense than the views of many of its rank-and-file members.

I was actually a CWI member for a while, but not anymore. I'm still a critical supporter though.