Report: Iran deploys 15,000 troops to help Syria's Assad [Archive]

Os Cangaceiros

7th February 2012, 23:26

When the working class of these country's and indeed around the world rise up in Socialist revolution free from cloak and dagger Imperialist intervention give me a call.

Newsflash, the USA and other nations try and use every international event to their advantage, get over it.

Apparently the unremitting torture, imprisonment and murder of opponents of Assad's regime is Ok as long as the spectre of NATO is kept at bay. Even if it means a Bahrain-style counterrevolution from Iran. :rolleyes: (Although I don't believe this particular report.)

I recently read an interesting interview on this topic, relevant section quoted:

Obviously, over recent weeks, there has been a ratcheting up of rhetoric against the Iranian regime. But there remain many factors that militate against an attack and I don’t think that a strike by Washington or Tel Aviv is categorically determined.

In the case of Syria, it is clear that the Western states, Israel and the Gulf countries want to see a more pliant regime and this is partially motivated by a desire to undermine Iran’s regional influence (connected of course to Hizbullah in Lebanon). I don’t believe, however, that the toppling of Assad will necessarily lead to a regime that is more closely aligned with Western interests. The overall anti-imperialist sentiment remains strong among the Syrian population and the attempts by parts of the left to smear the entire uprising as a stand-in for imperialism belies a Manichean worldview that badly misunderstands the country’s history.

I don’t see any contradiction in opposing intervention and simultaneously being against the Assad regime – which, we need to remember, has embraced neoliberalism and consistently used a rhetoric of "anti-imperialism" to obfuscate a practice of accommodation with both the US and Israel. But we need to remember that there is a correspondence between the brutality of the regime and internal support for intervention. In this sense, the violence of the Assad regime further serves the broader interests of imperialism in the region (as this violence has long done).

http://links.org.au/node/2722

~Spectre

7th February 2012, 23:27

The war is already set in motion, the pieces are already placed on the board.

Each star marks a Imperialist military base.

[IMG]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/403617_10150488951897115_551657114_8833351_1505596 853_n.jpg[IMG]

That's not "team imperialist", that's U.S./NATO. Iran is part of an imperialist network too.

runequester

7th February 2012, 23:32

Oh I can only wonder how the united states may respond to this.

A:more meaningless sanctions that will do nothing

B: start another war

Either way this is just fantastic.

War at this point seems to be a very likely event, within the next 10 years or so.
Sanctions, talk of weapons of mass destruction, stop me if you've heard this one before.

IrishWorker

7th February 2012, 23:33

Newsflash, the USA and other nations try and use every international event to their advantage, get over it.

Apparently the unremitting torture, imprisonment and murder of opponents of Assad's regime is Ok as long as the spectre of NATO is kept at bay. Even if it means a Bahrain-style counterrevolution from Iran. :rolleyes: (Although I don't believe this particular report.)

I recently read an interesting interview on this topic, relevant section quoted:

http://links.org.au/node/2722

Ah sure thats grand then Imperialism is going to use every situation to their advantage so we all must get over it and get on with our lives.

Listen to yourself comrade, your supporting colonialism by proxy.

~Spectre

7th February 2012, 23:34

~Spectre

7th February 2012, 23:36

War at this point seems to be a very likely event, within the next 10 years or so.
Sanctions, talk of weapons of mass destruction, stop me if you've heard this one before.

It depends. The first term of the George W. Bush administration was far right, even by American imperialism standards.

The status quo is much more likely to be backing military coups and that sort of thing.

Os Cangaceiros

7th February 2012, 23:36

Ah sure thats grand then Imperialism is going to use every situation to their advantage so we all must get over it and get on with our lives.

Listen to yourself comrade, your supporting colonialism by proxy.

No, you need to get over the fact that in today's world there will never be a major geopolitical event that USA doesn't attempt to worm its way into.

Also, LOL at "colonialism by proxy", when you're defending the hypothetical use of a proxy force attempting to subdue an uprising in Syria.

IrishWorker

7th February 2012, 23:36

That's not "team imperialist", that's U.S./NATO. Iran is part of an imperialist network too.

Yeah you justify your twisted logic what ever way you want. We do not see many Iranian or Syrian war ships of the coast of America tho?

IrishWorker

7th February 2012, 23:40

No, you need to get over the fact that in today's world there will never be a major geopolitical event that USA doesn't attempt to worm its way into.

Also, LOL at "colonialism by proxy", when you're defending the hypothetical use of a proxy force attempting to subdue an uprising in Syria.

Such defeatist clap trap.

~Spectre

7th February 2012, 23:45

Yeah you justify your twisted logic what ever way you want. We do not see many Iranian or Syrian war ships of the coast of America tho?

Actually yes:
Iran plans to send Navy vessels steaming across the Atlantic and towards the U.S. to build up an open sea presence along the marine border with the east coast, according to the Iranian Navy's top commander.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-send-navy-us-coast-reports/story?id=14623277#.TzG2n1zwv7E

But that's beside the point. Iran uses it's leverage on weaker states, like Lebanon. Iran uses it's military against weaker groups, like Somalian pirates. Iran is also beholden to stronger imperial states, like Russia, which slaughter tons of people in their own right. In addition to this, Iran does plenty of business with states like Turkey.

manic expression

7th February 2012, 23:46

Also, LOL at "colonialism by proxy", when you're defending the hypothetical use of a proxy force attempting to subdue an uprising in Syria.
I shouldn't need to explain how it's not colonialism for one sovereign country to come to the aid of another.

I'm 99.999999999% sure this is made-up, though. No way Iran is sending troops to Syria.

~Spectre

7th February 2012, 23:46

Such defeatist clap trap.

It seems defeatist to support regimes that slaughter their own workers. But then again, we're marxists, and not contrarian liberal.

Krano

7th February 2012, 23:47

Googled this and the first link is to Alex Jones website pretty hard to take this as fact :laugh:

~Spectre

7th February 2012, 23:47

I shouldn't need to explain how it's not colonialism for one sovereign country to come to the aid of another.

That sounds like American justifications for the Vietnam war.

IrishWorker

7th February 2012, 23:52

Actually yes:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-send-navy-us-coast-reports/story?id=14623277#.TzG2n1zwv7E

But that's beside the point. Iran uses it's leverage on weaker states, like Lebanon. Iran uses it's military against weaker groups, like Somalian pirates. Iran is also beholden to stronger imperial states, like Russia, which slaughter tons of people in their own right. In addition to this, Iran does plenty of business with states like Turkey.

As I said before Iran and Syria are far from perfect but where is.

Do we want to get into who is the biggest human rights abuser as I think the US and Nato are up there with the rest of them.

And here in lays the hypocrisy in your argument as you proclaim to be on the revolutionary left yet find yourself on the same side as Imperialist Colonialism.

Here is the Arab league monitors report on who is responsible for violence in Syria. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

Foreign backed subversives.

manic expression

7th February 2012, 23:53

That sounds like American justifications for the Vietnam war.
The justifications for military action have ever been cut from the same cloth. Thus, the question is not who claims a just cause, and instead, the question is who has a just cause.

Those who support Syria against the manipulations and aggression of imperialism have more than a mere claim. To stand with Syria today is to stand against the enemies of the masses.

IrishWorker

8th February 2012, 00:01

The justifications for military action have ever been cut from the same cloth. Thus, the question is not who claims a just cause, and instead, the question is who has a just cause.

Those who support Syria against the manipulations and aggression of imperialism have more than a mere claim. To stand with Syria today is to stand against the enemies of the masses.
So by your logic you must be hopelessly intertwined with Imperialist foreign policy.

With the greatest respect comrade that is plain crap.

I will support any progressive Socialist revolution, I refuse to support orchestrated Imperialist regime changes to suit the western Capitalist agenda.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 00:01

As I said before Iran and Syria are far from perfect but where is.

No where is. We live under capitalism, and we're socialists. So we don't pick our favorite capitalist gang over the other.

Do we want to get into who is the biggest human rights abuser as I think the US and Nato are up there with the rest of them.

Indeed. But because serial killer X has worse guns than serial killer Y, doesn't mean you support the serial killer.

And here in lays the hypocrisy in your argument as you proclaim to be on the revolutionary left yet find yourself on the same side as Imperialist Colonialism.

I haven't sided with either of them. You have. You've sided with regimes that slaughter their own workers. Want to get into histrionics? That makes you a class traitor.

Here is the Arab league monitors report on who is responsible for violence in Syria. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

Foreign backed subversives.

Where does it say that?

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 00:03

Those who support Syria against the manipulations and aggression of imperialism have more than a mere claim. To stand with Syria today is to stand against the enemies of the masses.

So by extension, the workers of Syria must support the Assad regime, or else they aren't, "standing against the enemies of the masses"?

That's the extension of your argument, and it's quite reactionary.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 00:06

So by extension, the workers of Syria must support the Assad regime, or else they aren't, "standing against the enemies of the masses"?
Not at all. Standing with Syria means standing for its self-determination first and foremost. That means that if there is a genuine working-class opposition there that rejects imperialism (which any working-class movement would do), it is to be supported.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 00:09

Not at all. Standing with Syria means standing for its self-determination first and foremost. That means that if there is a genuine working-class opposition there that rejects imperialism (which any working-class movement would do), it is to be supported.

That's not "Syria", and it's not "Iran", which is what you said.

You supported both regimes in one post, and neither of them have anything to do with the working class. You then stated that we have to rally with said regimes. Pure reaction on your part.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 00:13

That's not "Syria", and it's not "Iran", which is what you said.
Of course it is. Are the workers of Syria not in Syria? Are the workers of Iran not in Iran? Supporting the self-determination of those countries means supporting progressive forces there and opposing imperialism.

You supported both regimes in one post, and neither of them have anything to do with the working class. You then stated that we have to rally with said regimes. Pure reaction on your part.
If there is opposition to the right of those governments, then I don't support them because the oppositions present nothing of benefit to the masses. If there is opposition to the left of those governments that rejects imperialism, then I would support that movement.

The anti-worker position would be blindly supporting any Tom, Dick and Harry who declares themselves against a government (and probably seeks out imperialist aid in the process).

gorillafuck

8th February 2012, 00:13

The justifications for military action have ever been cut from the same cloth. Thus, the question is not who claims a just cause, and instead, the question is who has a just cause.

Those who support Syria against the manipulations and aggression of imperialism have more than a mere claim. To stand with Syria today is to stand against the enemies of the masses.Syria is allied with a different capitalist power bloc.

was Syria standing with the masses when they invited David Duke to speak on Syrian television?

manic expression

8th February 2012, 00:17

Syria is allied with a different capitalist power bloc.

was Syria standing with the masses when they invited David Duke to speak on Syrian television?
Syria is not an imperialist power, nor is it an imperialist client, which is important to establish as it sets the stage for the ongoing struggle there.

But I suppose David Duke's appearance on Syrian TV means we should cheer if pro-imperialist rightists deliver the country into the hands of Washington. :rolleyes: I swear, none of the "we love seeing imperialism topple governments" camp learns from the past. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan......

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 00:18

Of course it is. Are the workers of Syria not in Syria? Are the workers of Iran not in Iran? Supporting the self-determination of those countries means supporting progressive forces there and opposing imperialism.

I shouldn't need to explain how it's not colonialism for one sovereign country to come to the aid of another.

So by your own admission, you think Iran is a "progressive force" in Syria, despite the fact that the Iranian regime slaughters workers.

True exposure.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 00:19

So by your own admission, you think Iran is a "progressive force" in Syria, despite the fact that the Iranian regime slaughters workers.
Compared to imperialism, Iran is a progressive force. Do you deny this, or do you prefer imperialism?

And there's no arguing that Iran is colonialist, which is a point of yours you've run away from. You may sling around meaningless charges all you like, you're not changing the basic situation from what it is.

IrishWorker

8th February 2012, 00:24

No where is. We live under capitalism, and we're socialists. So we don't pick our favorite capitalist gang over the other.

Indeed. But because serial killer X has worse guns than serial killer Y, doesn't mean you support the serial killer.

I haven't sided with either of them. You have. You've sided with regimes that slaughter their own workers. Want to get into histrionics? That makes you a class traitor.

Where does it say that?

Anti Imperialism is now class collaboration, give your head a shake.

Arab league monitors find slaughter in Syria the work of foreign-backed subversives
A report by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) based on a one month inquiry by 160 monitors failed, as Pepe Romero reports in the Asia Times, to conclude that:
... the "evil" Bashar al-Assad government is indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order.

So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed - by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed - because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English and published in the Arab League's website.

Until it was leaked. Here it is, in full.

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.

... So the current "Arab-led drive to secure a peaceful end to the 10-month crackdown" in Syria at the UN is no less than a crude regime change drive. Usual suspects Washington, London and Paris have been forced to fall over themselves to assure the real international community this is not another mandate for NATO bombing - a la Libya. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as "a path for a political transition that would preserve Syria's unity and institutions".
http://canspeccy.blogspot.com/2012/02/arab-league-monitors-find-slaughter-in.html

gorillafuck

8th February 2012, 00:26

Syria is not an imperialist power, nor is it an imperialist client, which is important to establish as it sets the stage for the ongoing struggle there.

But I suppose David Duke's appearance on Syrian TV means we should cheer if pro-imperialist rightists deliver the country into the hands of Washington. :rolleyes: I swear, none of the "we love seeing imperialism topple governments" camp learns from the past. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan......if you think that that's the view I was expressing, that's ridiculous and shows a lot of immaturity on your part. especially given how vehemently I argued against the Libyan rebel movement.

Syria is not a progressive government that challenges capitalism at all. Syria is not run by the PDPA. it is run by Baathists. I won't applaud a movement that I am not too familiar with but claiming that to stand with "the masses" is to stand with Baathists is ridiculous.

and it is not an imperialist state but yes, it does stand with a different capitalist bloc.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 00:29

Compared to imperialism, Iran is a progressive force. Do you deny this, or do you prefer imperialism?

I'm not sure if you're dishonest, or simply dull, but here's the extension of this false dichotomy:

If, as you claim, the only choices are Iran and the U.S., and as you claim, Iran is better, then it follows that you are calling for the Syrian workers to rally behind a regime that slaughters workers.

If the real choice however, includes "none of the above", and "I'm with the working class", then there's no basis for siding with a reactionary anti-worker state.

At least be honest.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 00:35

if you think that that's the view I was expressing, that's ridiculous and shows a lot of immaturity on your part. especially given how vehemently I argued against the Libyan rebel movement.

Syria is not a progressive government that challenges capitalism at all. Syria is not run by the PDPA. it is run by Baathists. I won't applaud a movement that I am not too familiar with but claiming that to stand with "the masses" is to stand with Baathists is ridiculous.

and it is not an imperialist state but yes, it does stand with a different capitalist bloc.
I wasn't trying to say that was your view; my apologies if it was taken that way.

What I am trying to say is that the most important thing is to keep imperialism out of Syria. That will bring the best prospects for progress to the working class. That is what is meant by standing with Syria...standing for its sovereignty and self-determination so that a real working-class movement can find success. If imperialism enters Syria either overtly or covertly then that possibility will be put back by a thousand fold.

I agree with your point on the ongoing conflict, the opposition in Syria is not monolithic and it's hard to say what the situation is, but IMO it is important to establish that if this is an opposition to the right of the government then we should not blindly support it just because we don't like Assad.

Perhaps that point got lost somewhere between Iran not being colonialist and how "stand with Syria" doesn't mean "stand with the state", but I hope it's clear now.

Renegade Saint

8th February 2012, 00:43

Yeah you justify your twisted logic what ever way you want. We do not see many Iranian or Syrian war ships of the coast of America tho?
Iran is an imperialist state. Only 51% of the population is Persian, and a good percentage of of those minorities have no wish to be a part of the Islamic Republic.

As has been pointed out in several threads, there's multiple anti-government groups in Syria. Some want Western intervention. Others explicitly do not. Socialists should stand with the latter, not NATO stooges and certainly not theocracies or right-wing dictatorships.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 00:43

I'm not sure if you're dishonest, or simply dull, but here's the extension of this false dichotomy:

If, as you claim, the only choices are Iran and the U.S., and as you claim, Iran is better, then it follows that you are calling for the Syrian workers to rally behind a regime that slaughters workers.

If the real choice however, includes "none of the above", and "I'm with the working class", then there's no basis for siding with a reactionary anti-worker state.

At least be honest.
I write "stand with Syria" and you see "stand with Assad"...and now you're claiming I'm dishonest? Please.

Iran has very little to do with the immediate equation in Syria. The only reason its name should be brought up is by you admitting that Iran is not colonialist.

When it comes to Syria, we cannot pretend there is an option where it does not exist. While I would wholeheartedly support a genuinely working-class force in Syria, we do not know for sure that there is a movement of the working class in Syria today, and as such we cannot support that which is not known. Thus, IF the choice is between the Syrian government and imperialism, then it is vital that we oppose the latter. Does that mean supporting Assad? No, it means supporting the sovereignty of Syria (thus the words "stand with Syria"), which is entirely beneficial to the Syrian masses and is endlessly preferable to the aforementioned alternative from every possible progressive perspective.

"I'm with the working class" is something we can all agree with...but how is it presently applicable to the political realities of Syria? That's what you have to ask yourself.

gorillafuck

8th February 2012, 00:48

What I am trying to say is that the most important thing is to keep imperialism out of Syria. That will bring the best prospects for progress to the working class. That is what is meant by standing with Syria...standing for its sovereignty and self-determination so that a real working-class movement can find success. If imperialism enters Syria either overtly or covertly then that possibility will be put back by a thousand fold.what the PSL seems to not understand is that no conflict will be ignored by imperialism, therefore by taking the side of states opposing American imperialism in all situations, they are doomed to always side with a certain faction of capitalism.

and also, by referring to Iran as "progressive compared to imperialism", it ignores that the modern Iranian state is the result of a campaign of terror and murder against socialists who fought against the Shah, and also against the Islamists during the initial power struggle after the Iranian revolution.

I agree with your point on the ongoing conflict, the opposition in Syria is not monolithic and it's hard to say what the situation is, but IMO it is important to establish that if this is an opposition to the right of the government then we should not blindly support it just because we don't like Assad.it seems clear to me that any Iranian involvement is to advance the interests of Iranian, Syrian, and Russian capitalists, and therefore is worthy of condemnation.

(ignoring the fact that this article is obviously not true if you just look at a map...)

Perhaps that point got lost somewhere between Iran not being colonialist and how "stand with Syria" doesn't mean "stand with the state", but I hope it's clear now.what is the difference?

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 00:53

I write "stand with Syria" and you see "stand with Assad"...and now you're claiming I'm dishonest? Please.

You support the anti-worker (you called them "progressive) Iranian state's military intervention in Syria. Who-do-you-think-they-support?

You think the Iranian government is interested in supporting worker causes in Syria?

Thus, IF the choice is between the Syrian government and imperialism, then it is vital that we oppose the latter.

It's vital we oppose both. You claim we can't oppose both, thus by extension you are calling on workers to rally around the reactionary government.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 00:58

I shouldn't need to explain how it's not colonialism for one sovereign country to come to the aid of another.

Also what the fuck is this "sovereign countries aiding each other" bullshit.

These states are constructs, used to impose the will of the ruling class, over workers. Workers have no country. No fucks should be given to the sort of justification you're attempting to provide.

Literally, a sovereign country can call in the United States, and you'd be expressing support with such a bullshit argument. Of course, then you'd say "well no, it's about what the states do"- which of course makes your orginal post here, meaningless...

manic expression

8th February 2012, 00:58

what the PSL seems to not understand is that no conflict will be ignored by imperialism, therefore by taking the side of states opposing American imperialism in all situations, they are doomed to always side with a certain faction of capitalism.

and also, by referring to Iran as "progressive compared to imperialism", it ignores that the modern Iranian state is the result of a campaign of terror and murder against socialists who fought against the Shah, and also against the Islamists during the initial power struggle after the Iranian revolution.
Working-class movements don't collaborate with imperialism, and so the side against imperialism will inevitably include all and any working-class forces. Even still, the position isn't made by rote repetition: the positions on the various conflicts are always backed by extensive study on the history and political and social circumstances of the country in question.

Overall, I think it is of crucial importance to all progressives and to the workers of all countries that imperialism is opposed at every step. I don't think it a drawback to apply this to actual positions.

On the Iranian government being progressive compared to imperialism, I don't think it ignores (http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11375&news_iv_ctrl=1038) that at all:

The Iranian revolution was not led by the most progressive forces. The left and the secular nationalist forces had been crushed by the U.S. client regime, leaving a grouping of Islamic nationalists with socially reactionary views to take the leadership of the revolution.

While solidly anti-imperialist in its orientation, the Islamic Republic has also been staunchly anti-communist. This is evident from the bloody campaign of repression carried out against leftist forces, particularly in the first decade of the revolution.

The Islamic Republic represents the capitalist class, but it is rooted in the nationalist sectors of that class. Unlike the comprador sectors of the capitalist class, which are content in selling out the country to the highest bidder, the nationalists seek to assert control over the country’s resources so that they can exploit them to their own ends.

This gives the Islamic Republic a dual character. Insofar as it oppresses the working class, it is a reactionary force. But insofar as it defends Iran’s independence from imperialist plunder, it is a progressive force.

it seems clear to me that any Iranian involvement is to advance the interests of Iranian, Syrian, and Russian capitalists, and therefore is worthy of condemnation.

(ignoring the fact that this article is obviously not true if you just look at a map...)Right, it's not happening. But condemning those interests is fine, so long as we can agree that imperialism is far worse and between the two represents the greater enemy to the workers.

what is the difference?Syrian sovereignty doesn't boil down to the Syrian state.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:02

Syrian sovereignty doesn't boil down to the Syrian state.

"Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1] "

Who has the authority in Syria? The State, or the workers? Nationalism around anti-worker entities is reactionary.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:12

You support the anti-worker (you called them "progressive) Iranian state's military intervention in Syria. Who-do-you-think-they-support?
No, I said that there will be no Iranian military intervention...but that if by some contravention of the laws of physics allowed there to be one, that it wouldn't be colonialist.

You think the Iranian government is interested in supporting worker causes in Syria?
I think it's interested in Syria not being an imperialist client. I think that's not something worth condemning.

It's vital we oppose both. You claim we can't oppose both, thus by extension you are calling on workers to rally around the reactionary government.
You can only oppose both if there is a viable movement that involves neither. Does such a movement exist? That's what you have to ask yourself.

gorillafuck

8th February 2012, 01:17

Working-class movements don't collaborate with imperialism, and so the side against imperialism will inevitably include all and any working-class forces. Even still, the position isn't made by rote repetition: the positions on the various conflicts are always backed by extensive study on the history and political and social circumstances of the country in question.if by against imperialism you mean against the United States and NATO, then that's not necessarily true. Saddam was against western imperialism, working class forces were not allied with him.

Overall, I think it is of crucial importance to all progressives and to the workers of all countries that imperialism is opposed at every step. I don't think it a drawback to apply this to actual positions.this would make more sense applied to this situation if one side was socialist, not part of a capitalist bloc which is increasingly trying to expand it's political power and influence.

On the Iranian government being progressive compared to imperialism, I don't think it ignores (http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11375&news_iv_ctrl=1038) that at all:

The Iranian revolution was not led by the most progressive forces. The left and the secular nationalist forces had been crushed by the U.S. client regime, leaving a grouping of Islamic nationalists with socially reactionary views to take the leadership of the revolution.this isn't totally true. the communists were not crushed by the US client regime leaving Islamists to take power, the communists were crushed by Islamists, giving Islamists the opportunity to take power.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:17

"Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1] "

Who has the authority in Syria? The State, or the workers? Nationalism around anti-worker entities is reactionary.
It also means more specifically self-governing and independent. In the context of our epoch, when all countries are forced under the yolk of imperialism or made its enemy, this means that a sovereign country is one not under imperialism's control. This is beneficial to the workers and must be defended by all progressives.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:22

I think it's interested in Syria not being an imperialist client. I think that's not something worth condemning.

Syria already is an imperialist client. You might notice they even have a foreign military base on their soil.

You can only oppose both if there is a viable movement that involves neither. Does such a movement exist? That's what you have to ask yourself.
Presumably, workers don't like being slaughtered. And wait for it...

If you're claiming that one can't oppose both the Syrian state and the U.S., then...you're back to calling for workers to rally around the Syrian and Iranian states. Disgusting.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:22

if by against imperialism you mean against the United States and NATO, then that's not necessarily true. Saddam was against western imperialism, working class forces were not allied with him.
Right, but working class forces weren't allied with NATO, either. Remember, it wasn't Saddam that was supported, it was the self-determination of the people of Iraq, it was their struggle against imperialism. I think history has shown how important that is.

this would make more sense applied to this situation if one side was socialist, not part of a capitalist bloc which is increasingly trying to expand it's political power and influence.
Not all ruling classes are the same...the Ethiopian Empire was pretty well reactionary but it deserved to be defended when targeted by Mussolini.

this isn't totally true. the communists were not crushed by the US client regime leaving Islamists to take power, the communists were crushed by Islamists, giving Islamists the opportunity to take power.
Well yes, they were crushed by both, but IMO the main point was that the communists were greatly weakened by the US client regime, making it far easier (arguably a fait accompli) for the Islamists to do what they did.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:24

It also means more specifically self-governing and independent. In the context of our epoch, when all countries are forced under the yolk of imperialism or made its enemy, this means that a sovereign country is one not under imperialism's control. This is beneficial to the workers and must be defended by all progressives.

So in other words, despite the fact that workers are killed and oppressed by Assad, that's OK because he's aligned with Iran and Russia, instead of the United States? That's interesting.

What we're after is worker control. These states don't have worker control, and as such are all obstacles.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:28

it was the self-determination of the people of Iraq

What does this mean? The "self-determination" of the Al-Maliki government? Your bizarre arguments hide behind the same catch-phrases.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:30

Syria already is an imperialist client. You might notice they even have a foreign military base on their soil.
A base does not a client make.

Presumably, workers don't like being slaughtered. And wait for it...

If you're claiming that one can't oppose both the Syrian state and the U.S., then...you're back to calling for workers to rally around the Syrian and Iranian states. Disgusting.
Yeah, that had nothing to do with my post...absolutely nothing. What I'm claiming is that:

You can only oppose both [imperialism and the Syrian state] if there is a viable movement that involves neither [ie a working-class movement].

Get it? You can pat yourself on the back about "supporting the workers" until the cows come home, but it has no applicability to the political situation if there's no working class movement. With your line, all you're doing is living in a la-la land where you have your perfect political movement that does whatever you want. Too bad that's not the real world, the real world is where opposing imperialism is important for the interests of the workers.

So closing your eyes and wishing for a movement to the left of the Syrian government doesn't make it happen. You have to deal with what's in front of you.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:32

So closing your eyes and wishing for a movement to the left of the Syrian government doesn't make it happen. You have to deal with what's in front of you.

So if that's not in front of the Syrian people, and they have to deal with what's in front of them, then you think they should rally around the state. A state that kills workers.

That's your argument. Have the courage to admit it.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:35

A base does not a client make.

The Russian state seems to disagree with you about who their clients are:

Arms contracts and excessive loans

Syria represents 10 per cent of Russia’s total international arms sales in $1.5 billion worth of contracts, Leuprecht noted.

In 2011 alone, Syria spent an extra $20 billion in security costs – an expense the underdeveloped country likely can’t afford. About 22 Arab countries’ combined GDP is the equivalent of Canada’s.

Meanwhile Russia has also been sending at least two boatloads of arms to Syria, including a third that was stopped in Cyprus, Greece, because of bad weather. Helicopters and other items were sent en masse to Assad’s robust military of at least 400,000 people who are bombarding Homs in an effort to squash rebellion in the city.

“The Russians won’t put it this way, but clearly they’re giving these arms on loan. Every weapon they send is a greater cost to Russia because it’s more money they’re sinking into this regime. They have a lot at stake here if they want to keep the regime alive if for no other reason than they want to get their money back,” Leuprecht said.

Location, location, location

Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Tartus and a new regime may not accommodate this arrangement that was made under an outdated 1971 agreement.

Other countries have turned Afghanistan, Iraq and the Gulf nations into their “backyards” with military bases and other forms of presence, which Russia sees as a threat, said Leuprecht.

“For Russia, it’s a strategic game. They see the massive expansion of the American-Western footprint and they need to hang on to Syria,” he said.
And the country’s geographical location – facing the Mediterranean Sea and nestled beside Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and Iran and Iraq – makes it worth fighting for.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:35

So in other words, despite the fact that workers are killed and oppressed by Assad, that's OK because he's aligned with Iran and Russia, instead of the United States? That's interesting.

What we're after is worker control. These states don't have worker control, and as such are all obstacles.
No, it means that the absence of imperialism is progressive for the workers of Syria. It means that any move towards imperialism is not.

You're not after worker control, you're after blindly supporting whatever opposition happens to exist, which is liberal politics.

What does this mean? The "self-determination" of the Al-Maliki government? Your bizarre arguments hide behind the same catch-phrases.
Are you just being thick on purpose or something? I wasn't referring to the Al-Maliki government. If you're not willing to read my posts honestly then go to bed.

So if that's not in front of the Syrian people,
Is it? Is that not in front of the Syrian people? Or are you just making up more nonsense because you're a delusional liberal?

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:37

The Russian state seems to disagree with you about who their clients are:
Thanks for proving nothing. Now run along to your next liberal cause.

gorillafuck

8th February 2012, 01:40

Right, but working class forces weren't allied with NATO, either. Remember, it wasn't Saddam that was supported, it was the self-determination of the people of Iraq, it was their struggle against imperialism. I think history has shown how important that is.what do you mean by this? more specifically who do you mean deserves support.

Not all ruling classes are the same...the Ethiopian Empire was pretty well reactionary but it deserved to be defended when targeted by Mussolini.so you argue that a rising capitalist power bloc is worthy of support because it is not the United States?

Well yes, they were crushed by both, but IMO the main point was that the communists were greatly weakened by the US client regime, making it far easier (arguably a fait accompli) for the Islamists to do what they did.which just demonstrates how reactionary and non-progressive the Islamic government is when they continue Shah era policies of communist hunting.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:41

You're not after worker control, you're after blindly supporting whatever opposition happens to exist, which is liberal politics.

You're like a cornered squid, spraying out ink as a distraction. I don't support "whatever opposition happens to exist", I support the workers, by extension I oppose all groups that are anti-worker. These groups include the Iranian, Russian and Syrian states.

Is it? Is that not in front of the Syrian people?

I think it is. You don't. Which is why you support regimes that murder workers. If a worker movement is in front of them (your new claim), then why the hell bother supporting the Iranian and Syrian states?

Are you prepared to retract your previous support for reactionaries?

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:43

what do you mean by this?
By that is meant opposition to the invasion on the grounds of its violation of the self-determination of the people of Iraq.

so you argue that a rising capitalist power bloc is worthy of support because it is not the United States?
I'd hardly call it "rising", but the governments we're referring to (Iran and Syria) are not imperialist and that is worthy of recognition. In the same way that Ethiopia was to be defended from fascism even though Ethiopia wasn't a socialist state, progressives should be ready to defend countries from imperialism even if they're not ruled by working-class governments.

which just demonstrates how reactionary and non-progressive the Islamic government is when they continue Shah era policies of communist hunting.
Reactionary when it comes to oppressing the working class, yes; still progressive when it comes to resisting imperialism.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:45

You're like a cornered squid, spraying out ink as a distraction. I don't support "whatever opposition happens to exist",
Except you do. Your problem, not mine. That you make up the character of that opposition in order to feel better about your liberal politics doesn't change facts.

I think it is.So you're wrong. Good for you.

Have fun with your imaginary movement with your imaginary politics.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:45

Thanks for proving nothing. Now run along to your next liberal cause.

Thank God for progressive Iran! Making sure no states will be able to "hang on" to Syria and draw up billions of dollars of contracts that Syria can't afford.

Oh wait...

"Syria represents 10 per cent of Russia’s total international arms sales in $1.5 billion worth of contracts, Leuprecht noted.

In 2011 alone, Syria spent an extra $20 billion in security costs – an expense the underdeveloped country likely can’t afford. About 22 Arab countries’ combined GDP is the equivalent of Canada’s.

“For Russia, it’s a strategic game. They see the massive expansion of the American-Western footprint and they need to hang on to Syria,”

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:47

Thank God for progressive Iran! Making sure no states will be able to "hang on" to Syria and draw up billions of dollars of contracts that Syria can't afford.
You shouldn't make posts when you're drunk.

Iran has very little to do with what you posted.

Try again, I think Obama's website will have what you're looking for.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:49

Except you do?

Evidence, squidward? At least I bash you over the head with your own dumb statements, not invented ones.

So you're wrong. Good for you.

Ok so:
1. You state that they have no working class movement in front of them.
2. You state that because of that, the Iranian state and the Assad regime are lesser evils.
3. You state they should choose the lesser evils.

Conclusion: You think workers should support the Iranian and Syrian states. States that murder workers.

There it is, regardless of you being too shy to admit what you really feel.

Reactionary.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:52

Evidence, squidward? At least I bash you over the head with your own dumb statements, not invented ones.
Funny, you invent movements...and bad insults. :laugh:

Ok so:
1. You state that they have no working class movement in front of them.
No, I didn't state that. Go back and try again when you understand something.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:52

You shouldn't make posts when you're drunk.
Iran has very little to do with what you posted.

You:

I think it's (Iran) interested in Syria not being an imperialist client. I think that's not something worth condemning.

You've stated that Iran wants to help Syria avoid being a client, and then you were provided with evidence that Syria is indeed a client.

So all your bizarre defenses of Syria and Iran, under the shameful abuse of anti-imperialism, self-destruct. You're a supporter of imperialism. Simply a different shade.

No wonder you keep forgetting what you write. The stuff is downright shameful.

gorillafuck

8th February 2012, 01:53

By that is meant opposition to the invasion on the grounds of its violation of the self-determination of the people of Iraq.That doesn't tell me more. what Iraqi organizations do you support?

I'd hardly call it "rising", but the governments we're referring to (Iran and Syria) are not imperialist and that is worthy of recognition. In the same way that Ethiopia was to be defended from fascism even though Ethiopia wasn't a socialist state, progressives should be ready to defend countries from imperialism even if they're not ruled by working-class governments.they are allies of Russia which is an imperialist country. that is what I was referring to.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:53

You've stated that Iran wants to help Syria avoid being a client,
Not really. Try again.

and then you were provided with evidence that Syria is indeed a client.
Except you haven't proven this. At all.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 01:57

No, I didn't state that. Go back and try again when you understand something.

You:

Get it? You can pat yourself on the back about "supporting the workers" until the cows come home, but it has no applicability to the political situation if there's no working class movement. With your line, all you're doing is living in a la-la land where you have your perfect political movement that does whatever you want. Too bad that's not the real world, the real world is where opposing imperialism is important for the interests of the workers.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 01:58

You:
Do you know what "if" means? Seriously, don't post drunk.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 02:00

That doesn't tell me more. what Iraqi organizations do you support?
None specifically, I don't know enough about the Iraqi political situation to say. But I don't see how it matters when it comes to the situation in 2003, and furthermore one need not support a single organization to support the sovereignty of a country against imperialism.

they are allies of Russia which is an imperialist country. that is what I was referring to.
Right, but they aren't indebted to Russia as would be the case with Israel to the US. Syria might be Russia's ally but as of now they aren't in Russia's pocket.

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 02:01

Me: "You've stated that Iran wants to help Syria avoid being a client"

You:

Not really. Try again.

You earlier:

I think it's interested in Syria not being an imperialist client.

You're in a hole, stop digging.
____

Except you haven't proven this. At all.

Why does Russia want to "hang on" to Syria, if it's not currently "holding on"?

Why else does Syria permit Russian military bases? Why else does the Syrian regime do billions of dollars worth of contracts with Russia, more than they can afford?

gorillafuck

8th February 2012, 02:03

None specifically, I don't know enough about the Iraqi political situation to say. But I don't see how it matters when it comes to the situation in 2003, and furthermore one need not support a single organization to support the sovereignty of a country against imperialism.well Islamists who murder eachother and civilians who are caught up in their civil warring are not a working class force...

Right, but they aren't indebted to Russia as would be the case with Israel to the US. Syria might be Russia's ally but as of now they aren't in Russia's pocket.being an ally to imperialism is not more pro working class than being a client...

and with the way the world economy works, yes I would say they are indebted to Russia.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 02:05

Me: "You've stated that Iran wants to help Syria avoid being a client"
Being interested in something and wanting to actively help someone (presumably militarily) are two different things. You tried to extrapolate one from the other because you're a liberal who doesn't like facts.

Why does Russia want to "hang on" to Syria, if it's not currently "holding on"?
Because it's a port.

Why else does Syria permit Russian military bases?
Were they forced to? That's what a client is: a government that has no real choice on the matter but is ordered here to there by their protectors.

Learn the difference, then talk politics. K?

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 02:05

Do you know what "if" means? Seriously, don't post drunk.

Yes, and you answered what the if was.

Me: I think a working class movement is an option for them

You:

So you're wrong. Good for you.

You: "if" one doesn't exist, then it's "la-la land"

You: "you're a delusional liberal"

Because you claim one doesn't exist.
____

You're in a hole, stop hitting yourself in the face with a shovel.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 02:07

well Islamists who murder eachother and civilians who are caught up in their civil warring are not a working class force...
The Islamist element in Iraq was probably overblown, but anyway they were all to the left of the US occupation and they were direct enemies of imperialism so there's no contradiction there.

being an ally to imperialism is not more pro working class than being a client...

and with the way the world economy works, yes I would say they are indebted to Russia.
It is more beneficial to the workers if they're not under the heel of imperialism but rather ruled by an ally of imperialism.

We're talking politically, in which case Syria isn't indebted. Russia didn't put Assad in power and they can't boss him around...if anything they're indebted to Syria for their only Mediterranean port (IIRC).

manic expression

8th February 2012, 02:10

Yes, and you answered what the if was.
I doubt there is a genuinely working-class movement, but I'm open to anyone who wants to say otherwise.

Do you have any evidence? No, you don't, just your overactive imagination. Good job.

Because you claim one doesn't exist.
A claim you haven't so much as questioned, much less debunked.

You're in a hole, stop hitting yourself in the face with a shovel.
My, aren't we creative? :laugh:

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 02:18

Being interested in something and wanting to actively help someone (presumably militarily) are two different things. You tried to extrapolate one from the other because you're a liberal who doesn't like facts.

Why would Iran be interested in Syria being out of Russia's network, when Russia's network helps keep Iran afloat? That makes no sense.

Because it's a port.

Yes, and Syrian money flows to Russia. As the article stated, Russia wants its investments back.

Were they forced to? That's what a client is: a government that has no real choice on the matter but is ordered here to there by their protectors.

Of course they take orders from Russia. You think Syria right now can tell Russia "no" on the bases?

What exactly do you think will happen to all the flow of weaponry, business, and diplomatic support? How is this particularly different than Israel's relationship with the United States?

~Spectre

8th February 2012, 02:22

I doubt there is a genuinely working-class movement

OK, so:

1. You doubt there is a "genuinely working-class movement".
2. You claim that because of that, the Iranian and Syrian states are lesser evils.
3. You claim people should choose the lesser evils.

Conclusion: You believe Syrian workers should rally around the Iranian and Syrian states. Two states that kill workers.

Still disgusting.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 02:24

Why would Iran be interested in Syria being out of Russia's network, when Russia's network helps keep Iran afloat? That makes no sense.
The point is that Iran, being an enemy of US imperialism, doesn't want Syria as a client of that force. Syria is Iran's last ally in the region and IIRC those two are the very last anti-imperialist governments in the region.

Yes, and Syrian money flows to Russia. As the article stated, Russia wants its investments back.Of course it does...that doesn't make Syria its client.

Of course they take orders from Russia. You think Syria right now can tell Russia "no" on the bases?

What exactly do you think will happen to all the flow of weaponry, business, and diplomatic support? How is this particularly different than Israel's relationship with the United States?Sure it could. In fact it could probably do it easier right now than at any other time...it would have absolutely no reason to, but there it is.

This is different from Israel's relationship with the US because Israel wouldn't exist at all without the US. Without US imperialism, Israel would be relegated to the pages of history within a months. Syria, on the other hand, does not owe its existence to Russia and Assad certainly doesn't owe his position to Russia. Without its relationship with Russia, Syria would have to cut back its military spending a bit. The difference is quite obvious.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 02:26

OK, so:

1. You doubt there is a "genuinely working-class movement".
2. You claim that because of that, the Iranian and Syrian states are lesser evils.
3. You claim people should choose the lesser evils.

Conclusion: You believe Syrian workers should rally around the Iranian and Syrian states. Two states that kill workers.

Still disgusting.
Here: I doubt there is a genuine working-class movement in Syria today. IF that is the case (which I feel it is), then the opposition is likely to the right of the Syrian government and represents a move toward imperialist domination, which is reactionary for the Syrian workers. The benefit, then, lies in opposing those reactionary forces and in building a progressive movement of workers.

Be disgusted as much as you like, that's the reality of the situation, don't get mad at me for pointing it out.

A Revolutionary Tool

8th February 2012, 03:40

This talk of imperialism and anti-imperialism always seems ridiculous. We should defend the Syrian states "right to self-determination" which always means the capitalists in control of the state and private companies can exploit the workers all they want. Only Syrian capitalists can do it under their nationalist dictatorship! Whilst Syria oppresses minorities in it's own borders, while they militarily occupy Lebanon and consistently act as imperialists there, sign free-trade agreements, etc, we should all defend them because they're "anti-imperialist". If you don't like the U.S./it's allies and other "Western" nations, you will be defended by communists it appears, even if you're a capitalist who will kill workers and communists within their boundaries.

I'm not saying we should invade them but let's not sit here and defend Assad and it's government under the guise of anti-imperialism saying Syria needs to be sovereign/should have the right to "self-determination" acting like the people of Syria even have a voice under the Dictatorship of a bunch of reactionary nationalist capitalists who would arrest you if you lived in their country for speaking of communism or anarchism. Since when was it the communists job to defend the nationalist capitalists against the internationalist capitalists? I guess I just fail to see how it's so much better to work for a nationalist capitalist than it is a "foreign" capitalist. What is so progressive about it, I really don't understand.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

8th February 2012, 03:54

Manic Expressive-IMO the problem you have is that you think a national bourgeoisie is nicer for whatever reason than an internationalist bourgeoisie. The Syrian state and the Iranian state both defend the owners of the means of production within their nations, and insofar as they do so they do it because it is befitting their economic interests. They are not "progressive" forces, on the contrary, both are Imperialist governments that use proxies in other countries or occupy territory where the inhabitants are denied political representation (look at Lebanon or Kurdistan) to export the power and economic influence of the established elites.

That said, if the USA were to invade either country, we should argue against that, but that's not what we're talking about. There is a protest movement against the state in these places, and we should judge those movements based on their composition and whether or not their demands are justified from their perspective insofar as they are alienated from the political and economic decision-making in their country.

Also, there's a snowball's chance in hell that a pro-Imperialist regime would actually take power in Syria if pro-Imperialism means sympathy with Israel. So I doubt the CIA really thinks that they can install an easy client state there which would not cause serious instability or which wouldn't risk collapsing within a short time-frame.

It is what it is, lets hope its true.

The Syrian regime and the Iranian regime are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it will be a cold day in hell when you see me on the same side as the Imperialists.

If you find yourself on the same side as the Imperialists you need to ask yourself some serious questions comrade. What happens in Syria and Iran is their business and no one else's.

If Iran is sending troops to support the Syrian regime, it is because their government is Imperialist. Syria and Iran are both Capitalist regimes (though the Iranian government like to play at criticizing Capitalism, they are more or less just State Capitalist themselves).

That said, it would be good to get more evidence that this is happening ...

there's no way they could do that, either.

this is false information.

It is probably false information. But there's no way to say that Iran couldn't deploy at least a small number of soldiers that way.

Red Commissar

8th February 2012, 04:06

It is probably false information. But there's no way to say that Iran couldn't deploy at least a small number of soldiers that way.

It is indeed probably false. Can't see that size of a force being deployed without ruffling feathers and creating a pretext for others to get involved even more, much less how Iran would transfer that amount of people and keep them supplied.

There are probably some Iranians here and there aiding Syrian forces where they can (these connections already exist, since they have probably had exercises with one another), in the same manner the US and others are probably doing with the Free Syrian Army and providing organizational expertise to the SNC. Saying that Iran is involved in this way just seems to be dishonest though.

Ynet's source to this is Al Arabiyah, looking through the site's english articles there doesn't seem to be report of that. So it might be a misinterpretation of one of their Arabic broadcasts or something they said as a blurb rather quick but not treating it as a 'main' story. Or Ynet could be speaking out of their ass, wouldn't be the first time they did that.

gorillafuck

8th February 2012, 04:20

It is probably false information. But there's no way to say that Iran couldn't deploy at least a small number of soldiers that way.it would have to be an extremely small number.

Princess Luna

8th February 2012, 06:43

If this was true, it would be all over the news and Obama would no doubt be giving a speech condemning Iran, and for one of the very few times in the whole struggle between Iran and the US I would actually agree with him. I oppose US/Israelie/NATO intervention in Syria, but I also support the Syrian people and it is clear the Syrian people are tired of being controlled by an egotistical optometrist. So saying Iran sending troops to support Assad is good, is throwing the Syrian people under the metaphorical bus in the name of anti-Imperialism.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 11:37

Manic Expressive-IMO the problem you have is that you think a national bourgeoisie is nicer for whatever reason than an internationalist bourgeoisie.
Straight up true or false right now: the people of Iraq are worse off because of the imperialist invasion.

Please answer that and then tell me what your answer suggests.

The Syrian state and the Iranian state both defend the owners of the means of production within their nations, and insofar as they do so they do it because it is befitting their economic interests. They are not "progressive" forces, on the contrary, both are Imperialist governments that use proxies in other countries or occupy territory where the inhabitants are denied political representation (look at Lebanon or Kurdistan) to export the power and economic influence of the established elites.
How are they imperialist? They're capitalist, but they're not imperialist by any definition.

That said, if the USA were to invade either country, we should argue against that, but that's not what we're talking about. There is a protest movement against the state in these places, and we should judge those movements based on their composition and whether or not their demands are justified from their perspective insofar as they are alienated from the political and economic decision-making in their country.
Well, as I've repeatedly said, show me a genuine working-class movement in the country and I'll support it with all haste. Until then, it seems as though the opposition is to the right of the government, and deserves no progressive support because of that fact.

Also, there's a snowball's chance in hell that a pro-Imperialist regime would actually take power in Syria if pro-Imperialism means sympathy with Israel.
Are you really expecting a client state to express open sympathy with Israel? You should give the imperialists a bit more credit (http://www.english.rfi.fr/node/93902) than that.

If Iran is sending troops to support the Syrian regime, it is because their government is Imperialist. Syria and Iran are both Capitalist regimes (though the Iranian government like to play at criticizing Capitalism, they are more or less just State Capitalist themselves).
Once again, capitalist does not mean imperialist. Yours is a false line of reasoning: "Iran would be imperialist because imperialists send troops to places". Except that's a hopelessly simplistic way of looking at things.

And yeah, it's not happening, so it's a moot point, probably propagated by the pro-imperialist voices who wish the Syrian opposition to succeed. Think about that.

Thirsty Crow

8th February 2012, 12:30

When the working class of these country's and indeed around the world rise up in Socialist revolution free from cloak and dagger Imperialist intervention give me a call.
Unadulterated reformist, class collaborationist rubbish.

Let me see if I got it right. Outside of periods of open revolutionary struggle, it is up to communists to actively promote and defend particular bourgeois states, ones which are perceived as either non-imperialist in essence (once again, pure rubbish) or as a weaker imperialist force.

Tell me again, how is such an opportunist, cowardly stance on class politics going to lead to a formation of intransigient revolutionary parties/organizations, capable to influence the workers' movement?

IrishWorker

8th February 2012, 13:04

Unadulterated reformist, class collaborationist rubbish.

Let me see if I got it right. Outside of periods of open revolutionary struggle, it is up to communists to actively promote and defend particular bourgeois states, ones which are perceived as either non-imperialist in essence (once again, pure rubbish) or as a weaker imperialist force.

Tell me again, how is such an opportunist, cowardly stance on class politics going to lead to a formation of intransigient revolutionary parties/organizations, capable to influence the workers' movement?

Its hardly reformist to oppose Imperialist expansion, and as I said before on this thread I'm no fan of the Syrian or Iranian regimes.

But I refuse to clap like a seal at the prospect of the western Imperialists backed by the Zionist agenda invade another country for the sole purpose of raising tensions in the region and laying the ground for war with Iran.

It is high hypocrisy for you to call me a class collaborator when your own position inevitably puts you on the same side as the Imperialists.

Thirsty Crow

8th February 2012, 14:26

Its hardly reformist to oppose Imperialist expansion, and as I said before on this thread I'm no fan of the Syrian or Iranian regimes. But then again, you do not oppose imperialist expansion as such, you merely oppose imperialism of one of the bourgeois states, or one of the imperialist blocs, which ties in to what I wrote about the conception of imperialism your lot peddles mindlessly.

When the problem is framed in such a way, it's painfully obvious that in fact your position represents at least the germ of reformisn and class collaboraation, which would probably come to the surface in the case of escalating workers' struggle in the "non-imperialist" state. I wonder how long it would take for denouncing and demands for crackdown to be issued.

Oh yes, and another thing, does your organization encourage such spineless vagueness with regard to political issues? To be clear, I'm referring to the grandiose and eloquent statements with regard to the character of the Iranian and Syrian state. Who would've guessed you're not a fan!

But I refuse to clap like a seal at the prospect of the western Imperialists backed by the Zionist agenda invade another country for the sole purpose of raising tensions in the region and laying the ground for war with Iran. Hell yeah, those who oppose every bourgeois state must be calling for military intervention. Nice thing going on there, a perfect example of being a cowardly idiot. Why don't you just go ahead and put out the condemnation of my own support for imperialism, out in the open?

It is high hypocrisy for you to call me a class collaborator when your own position inevitably puts you on the same side as the Imperialists.So, defending the class position, defending the autonomy, political before anything else, of the global working class in relation to every bourgeois faction, so that inevitably puts me on the same side as the imperialists?

manic expression

8th February 2012, 15:10

Sinister Cultural Marxist

8th February 2012, 15:53

Straight up true or false right now: the people of Iraq are worse off because of the imperialist invasion.

Please answer that and then tell me what your answer suggests.

Well, it was more or less the war that directly caused most of the problems, the war was merely the only way for American Imperialism to exert itself in Iraq at the time. Saddam once, long ago, opened himself up as a US client against Iran remember. The preferred form of US Imperialism is to utilize the local bourgeoisie to act on their behalf.

How are they imperialist? They're capitalist, but they're not imperialist by any definition.I've already explained in other threads, the only reason you don't think that they are Imperialist is because for some reason you think that Iran and Syria have sacrosanct national borders when I see no reason why ... Iranian and Syrian Kurds, for instance, are no more willingly a part of those nation-states as Ireland was a part of the UK.

Both Iran and Syria have used bourgeois clients abroad like Hezbollah to control the political and economic policies of their neighbors. A big part of the insurgency between the US and Iran in Iraq was a proxy war between factions within the country that were seen to benefit one side or the other.

If that weren't enough, imperialism is a latent possibility in all Capitalist countries with a military, and more than just a latent possibility it is a solid strategic move which helps to maintain a Capitalist government.

Well, as I've repeatedly said, show me a genuine working-class movement in the country and I'll support it with all haste. Until then, it seems as though the opposition is to the right of the government, and deserves no progressive support because of that fact.
To the right of the government? Is the GOVERNMENT a working class movement? We DO know the working class is getting killed in droves for protesting their shitty dictatorship. Now the Assad regime is using artillery against protesters. You tell me how an artillery shell can tell the difference between a FSA rebel or an unarmed protester/a regular worker/a bunch of innocent kids ...

Are you really expecting a client state to express open sympathy with Israel? You should give the imperialists a bit more credit (http://www.english.rfi.fr/node/93902) than that.
You should give the Syrian people a bit more credit. If they can overthrow Assad, they can sure as hell overthrow a shitty client state which takes policies in opposition to the demands of the Syrian people. It might take time but your view IMO is condescending, that somehow the Syrians need elitist thugs like Assad to show them the difference between Imperialism and real Syrian interests.

There is no evidence that the NTC actually seized power in Libya either btw, the Libyans are now protesting them and they cannot even get a hold of those militias. I don't care what some franco-zionist liberal philosopher says about the NTC, the reality is that there's no pro-Zinoist Arab regime with any staying power, whether it is supporting by the West or otherwise.

Once again, capitalist does not mean imperialist. Yours is a false line of reasoning: "Iran would be imperialist because imperialists send troops to places". Except that's a hopelessly simplistic way of looking at things.
A non-Imperialist Capitalist state would not have so many interests abroad to defend. States only send soldiers abroad when it is in their economic and geopolitical interests. Iran is in an Imperialist struggle with the West over the fate of the Middle East, the Western countries merely happen to be substantially more powerful so it is difficult to distinguish the imperialism of the other side.

And as mentioned before, all Capitalist societies have the latent ability to become Imperialist, and would do so if they needed to for the purpose of growing their Capital and preserving their power at home. Iran seems to be at that place right now, as far as the nature, size and scope of the IRGC's investments at home and abroad.

And yeah, it's not happening, so it's a moot point, probably propagated by the pro-imperialist voices who wish the Syrian opposition to succeed. Think about that.I agree with you at least that the evidence that this is actually happening is scant but is criticizing the Assad regime's behavior really "pro-Imperialist"? I find it disturbing that you find sympathy with a government that murders unarmed protesters to be a good, healthy, anti-Imperialist stance. Yes, there are armed groups now, but that doesn't change the fact that the Syrian state has relied repeatedly on the murder of unarmed working class and middle class people to perpetuate its rule, and to protect its social and economic elite from the anger of the masses. You don't need to worry, I will not be so unapologetic and assume that you're just some "Chinese agent" or "unpatriotic anarchist who hates all good 'Mericans" when I see you ziptied by an American cop and thrown in the back of a paddy wagon, and I won't assume that the State is in right when it gives the excuse that it had to do it because there were rocks thrown, or because the protesters were engaged in "illegal activities" It's possible to defend the Syrian people from American and NATO Imperialism without defending the mass murder of Syrian people by their autocratic (and capitalist) state.

You are awfully paternalistic, you like to think you know what it's like for these everyday Syrians protesting and whether they should take X Y or Z stance for the cause of stopping Imperialism, as if they don't know what they need to do to defend themselves from a tyrant in the short term.

danyboy27

8th February 2012, 16:53

Sending 15 000 iranian troops to syria is not impossible at all but the whole thing is obviously a hoax.

15 000 iranian soldier carrying gun and speaking farsi(and obviously repressing the population) in the middle of an arab country would obviously be reported by nearly every news outlet out there.

IrishWorker

8th February 2012, 17:11

But then again, you do not oppose imperialist expansion as such, you merely oppose imperialism of one of the bourgeois states, or one of the imperialist blocs, which ties in to what I wrote about the conception of imperialism your lot peddles mindlessly.

When the problem is framed in such a way, it's painfully obvious that in fact your position represents at least the germ of reformisn and class collaboraation, which would probably come to the surface in the case of escalating workers' struggle in the "non-imperialist" state. I wonder how long it would take for denouncing and demands for crackdown to be issued.

Oh yes, and another thing, does your organization encourage such spineless vagueness with regard to political issues? To be clear, I'm referring to the grandiose and eloquent statements with regard to the character of the Iranian and Syrian state. Who would've guessed you're not a fan!

Hell yeah, those who oppose every bourgeois state must be calling for military intervention. Nice thing going on there, a perfect example of being a cowardly idiot. Why don't you just go ahead and put out the condemnation of my own support for imperialism, out in the open?

So, defending the class position, defending the autonomy, political before anything else, of the global working class in relation to every bourgeois faction, so that inevitably puts me on the same side as the imperialists?

Of course "my lot" opposes all forms of Imperialism, my initial posting on this thread was to say that it was fantastic news that Syria had asked for help and that Iran had sent in troops. Not to cheer lead any crack down on the working class, but to bolster anti NATO imperialist military forces in Syria so we do not see a repeat of Libya.

I have no doubt in my mind that IF Iranian troops are in Syria ,at the request of the Syrian regime, it will make the Imperialists think twice about open military attacks. And if they do attack Syria they will at least be in for a decent fight.

This expansion has to be confronted somewhere as it cannot go on. Western Imperialism is toppling "unfriendly" regimes at will for oil. Causing death and destruction across the entire globe yet you fail to call a spade a spade over some typical ultra leftist nonsensical moral high ground attitude.

Your purist head in the sand stance on the situation in the middle east is , for someone like me who experiences colonialism daily, ideological Ivory Towerism.
You inevitably put yourself on the same side as UK,US and Western Imperialism, how revolutionary of you comrade.

Can you please explain how you are defending the "Class position" when your have positioned yourself in this debate on the side of the arch capitalists and subversive fundamentalist religious fanatics, Islamic and Zionist?

Thirsty Crow

8th February 2012, 18:41

Of course "my lot" opposes all forms of Imperialism, my initial posting on this thread was to say that it was fantastic news that Syria had asked for help and that Iran had sent in troops. Not to cheer lead any crack down on the working class, but to bolster anti NATO imperialist military forces in Syria so we do not see a repeat of Libya.Anti-nato military forces...which are, after all, firmly rooted in the proletarian camp, completely unopposed to any working class political initiative.
But tell me, what's your opinion on the relationship between these states and its military apparatuses and the working class, with its political organizations?

I have no doubt in my mind that IF Iranian troops are in Syria ,at the request of the Syrian regime, it will make the Imperialists think twice about open military attacks. And if they do attack Syria they will at least be in for a decent fight.Cheerleading for a bourgoisie to rally workers and get them butchered, in defense of a bourgeois state and its capitalist class. Nice one.

This expansion has to be confronted somewhere as it cannot go on. Western Imperialism is toppling "unfriendly" regimes at will for oil. Causing death and destruction across the entire globe yet you fail to call a spade a spade over some typical ultra leftist nonsensical moral high ground attitude.Moral high ground? I don't think you would be able to find even a hint of such a move on my part, that is, if you were able to read what I write and actually comprehend it. To spell it out for you, I've pointed out the political, not moral, reasons for the adoption of the class position, for revolutionary politics, without any exceptions.

Your purist head in the sand stance on the situation in the middle east is , for someone like me who experiences colonialism daily, ideological Ivory Towerism.
You inevitably put yourself on the same side as UK,US and Western Imperialism, how revolutionary of you comrade.Isn't that great, And just to note your disgusting little self-aggrandizment, I don't think any honest person would argue from the position of equating his own situation (Northern Ireland) with that of the Middle East. Somehow it seems that only certain nationalities should even speak about certain political issues, innit right?

And another problem might be that what you call the ideological ivory towerism reveals what is perhaps dangerous for would be communist groups: the desire to become "relevant", by means of bootlicking and attaching yourself politically to bourgeois forces. But hey, I'm still waiting to hear just how the regimes in question advance class struggle and its revolutionary escalation.

And it's beyond me how political statements openly condemning military intervention and any bourgeois faction involved can be understood as putting yourself on the side of the big bad West. It's as if there's the absolute necessity of defending any regime which doesn't count as the West, a twisted form of orientalism to be sure, all the while disregarding what should be obvious, that workers' have no interest and should have no interest to defend the property of their own native capitalist class and to defend their own native state apparatus (both of which are the antagonists of the working class). But it's always same with you, isn't it, in the absence of open revolutionary struggle rally under the banner of the most big mouthed anti-American head of state hoping that somehow that will make the point, and it does make the point, that you don't give a rat's ass for all of the worker and communist militants who suffer under those same heels.

Can you please explain how you are defending the "Class position" when your have positioned yourself in this debate on the side of the arch capitalists and subversive fundamentalist religious fanatics, Islamic and Zionist?
You're talking out of your arse, fool. This silly rants of yours bear little on the reality of my political position, which has nothing to do with providing support, explicit or implicit, by mistake.
I don't support military intervention, but neither do I support Ba'athist murderers. I don't support any bourgeois regime, and think that in this historical period, any notion of a progressive national borugeoisie is a dangerous delusion. Therefore, I oppose all factions of the bourgeoisie, be they based on nationality, religious inclination, ethnciity, political doctrine or the color of their fingernails. Most of all, I think that self-described communists who openly support capitalist states are crossing the class line.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 18:42

Well, it was more or less the war that directly caused most of the problems, the war was merely the only way for American Imperialism to exert itself in Iraq at the time. Saddam once, long ago, opened himself up as a US client against Iran remember. The preferred form of US Imperialism is to utilize the local bourgeoisie to act on their behalf.
With respect, I asked a straight up true or false.

I've already explained in other threads, the only reason you don't think that they are Imperialist is because for some reason you think that Iran and Syria have sacrosanct national borders when I see no reason why ... Iranian and Syrian Kurds, for instance, are no more willingly a part of those nation-states as Ireland was a part of the UK.
Having minority nationalities isn't the same thing as being imperialist. If that were the case, then a great many of the political formations in the history of mankind would have been imperialist. Was Makhnovist Ukraine imperialist? By your standards, it was.

Both Iran and Syria have used bourgeois clients abroad like Hezbollah to control the political and economic policies of their neighbors. A big part of the insurgency between the US and Iran in Iraq was a proxy war between factions within the country that were seen to benefit one side or the other.
Any idea why Iran supports Hezbollah? It's not because they're using them to import oil or bananas or diamonds.

If that weren't enough, imperialism is a latent possibility in all Capitalist countries with a military, and more than just a latent possibility it is a solid strategic move which helps to maintain a Capitalist government.
No, it's not a latent possibility in all capitalist countries with a military, it has to do with development.

To the right of the government? Is the GOVERNMENT a working class movement? We DO know the working class is getting killed in droves for protesting their shitty dictatorship. Now the Assad regime is using artillery against protesters. You tell me how an artillery shell can tell the difference between a FSA rebel or an unarmed protester/a regular worker/a bunch of innocent kids ...
You're side-stepping the issue. If the opposition is to the right of the government, then there is no reason for any progressive to support it.

The government's dealing with the opposition (which has moved beyond unarmed protests) has been heavy-handed and I don't agree with it, sure, but that tells us nothing about the political composition of the two. The opposition seems to not be a progressive force here. And further, if you base your opposition to the Syrian government because they have done immoral things, then you should reevaluate your stance as the Syrian opposition are not made up of angels either.

You should give the Syrian people a bit more credit. If they can overthrow Assad, they can sure as hell overthrow a shitty client state which takes policies in opposition to the demands of the Syrian people. It might take time but your view IMO is condescending, that somehow the Syrians need elitist thugs like Assad to show them the difference between Imperialism and real Syrian interests.
Governments aren't overthrown by "the people" at once, they're overthrown by certain people led by certain politicos with a certain outlook. It's not condescending to admit this basic political reality.

And no, there's no universal law that says that imperialist clients can be overthrown as easily as you want to believe. This isn't a matter of walking to the capital and telling them to pack their bags...the entire point of a client is that it's the client of something far more powerful: that would be US imperialism in this case. If you really believe a "shitty client" can be overthrown as easily as putting on a new pair of socks, then please look at Afghanistan (where the puppet government has virtually no significant support among the general populace) and tell me how nicely that's worked out.

There is no evidence that the NTC actually seized power in Libya either btw,
Well, you're right, NATO has seized power in Libya. All the same, pro-Zionist forces are in control because of the fall of Gaddafi.

A non-Imperialist Capitalist state would not have so many interests abroad to defend. States only send soldiers abroad when it is in their economic and geopolitical interests. Iran is in an Imperialist struggle with the West over the fate of the Middle East, the Western countries merely happen to be substantially more powerful so it is difficult to distinguish the imperialism of the other side.
Good thing, then, that Iran hasn't sent a single soldier abroad. By my last count, they haven't started a single war since 1979, and yet you want to paint them as aggressors...why?

I agree with you at least that the evidence that this is actually happening is scant but is criticizing the Assad regime's behavior really "pro-Imperialist"? I find it disturbing that you find sympathy with a government that murders unarmed protesters to be a good, healthy, anti-Imperialist stance. Yes, there are armed groups now, but that doesn't change the fact that the Syrian state has relied repeatedly on the murder of unarmed working class and middle class people to perpetuate its rule, and to protect its social and economic elite from the anger of the masses. You don't need to worry, I will not be so unapologetic and assume that you're just some "Chinese agent" or "unpatriotic anarchist who hates all good 'Mericans" when I see you ziptied by an American cop and thrown in the back of a paddy wagon, and I won't assume that the State is in right when it gives the excuse that it had to do it because there were rocks thrown, or because the protesters were engaged in "illegal activities" It's possible to defend the Syrian people from American and NATO Imperialism without defending the mass murder of Syrian people by their autocratic (and capitalist) state.
So what, precisely, is your position here? That as soon as anyone is harmed by any agent of the government, we should cheer the fall of that government even if it is a harbinger of greater oppression for the workers?

Defending the Syrian people from imperialism is my intent, and I don't think I've even once commented about the Syrian state's response other than to say that it has been unarguably heavy-handed...so I'm not defending their tactics at all.

You are awfully paternalistic, you like to think you know what it's like for these everyday Syrians protesting and whether they should take X Y or Z stance for the cause of stopping Imperialism, as if they don't know what they need to do to defend themselves from a tyrant in the short term.
When did I demand that working-class Syrians take a specific political stance? I've only said that because we cannot identify a viable working-class movement in opposition to the government, there is no reason for any progressive to support the opposition.

Ocean Seal

8th February 2012, 18:52

Look here's the thing everyone. It really doesn't matter if you support Syria or not. Unless you are some kind of liberal who believes that you can change the outcome of the war by thinking about it. What matters is if you support US intervention. Which you shouldn't regardless of the situation. You should also take the time to critically analyze the situation and what will happen in either case. Its possible that we will see a NATO co-option if the rebels gain enough power. You really shouldn't support the rebels because they have nothing to offer, that is however, no excuse for what Assad is doing. w

piet11111

8th February 2012, 18:58

I have been looking at the major news sites and nothing about iran deploying 15000 troops to Syria so at this time i guess its probably not true.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

8th February 2012, 19:12

With respect, I asked a straight up true or false.

No, I was saying your question is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not foreign or nationalist bourgeoisie are worse. Of course the war made Iraq a hellhole ... that's a totally irrelevant point though.

Having minority nationalities isn't the same thing as being imperialist. If that were the case, then a great many of the political formations in the history of mankind would have been imperialist. Was Makhnovist Ukraine imperialist? By your standards, it was.
It's obviously the relationship between those national minorities and the rulers. I suppose the Irish were just a "national minority" of the UK? Were the Indians? What makes someone a "national minority" of one nation and not a "colonized people" or "victims of Imperialism"? Many of these demographics in Iran and Syria have none of those features.

Any idea why Iran supports Hezbollah? It's not because they're using them to import oil or bananas or diamonds.Control of Lebanon, the Persian Gulf and Iraq clearly fulfill both economic and geopolitical goals for Iran. It is reductionist to think that all forms of Imperialism take the forms of oil and banana imports.

You're side-stepping the issue. If the opposition is to the right of the government, then there is no reason for any progressive to support it.

The government's dealing with the opposition (which has moved beyond unarmed protests) has been heavy-handed and I don't agree with it, sure, but that tells us nothing about the political composition of the two. The opposition seems to not be a progressive force here. And further, if you base your opposition to the Syrian government because they have done immoral things, then you should reevaluate your stance as the Syrian opposition are not made up of angels either.
The "Syrian opposition" is clearly not some monolithic entity the way the Syrian State is. Saying it is "less progressive" is like saying the Egyptian uprising was "less progressive" because it featured Wahabist elements.

Governments aren't overthrown by "the people" at once, they're overthrown by certain people led by certain politicos with a certain outlook. It's not condescending to admit this basic political reality.

And no, there's no universal law that says that imperialist clients can be overthrown as easily as you want to believe. This isn't a matter of walking to the capital and telling them to pack their bags...the entire point of a client is that it's the client of something far more powerful: that would be US imperialism in this case. If you really believe a "shitty client" can be overthrown as easily as putting on a new pair of socks, then please look at Afghanistan (where the puppet government has virtually no significant support among the general populace) and tell me how nicely that's worked out.The US is hemorrhaging money to prop up the Karzai government which is desperately seeking to negotiate with the Taliban. The Taliban, of course, being a movement which was once a US client but had (as many so-called "clients" do) decided to go their own way.

Well, you're right, NATO has seized power in Libya. All the same, pro-Zionist forces are in control because of the fall of Gaddafi.This seems like an incredibly simplistic, black and white way of viewing it. What about the battles between the militias? The utter inability of the NTC to reign them in? The fact that anti-Gaddafi protesters are now protesting against the NTC? I don't see any pro-Zionist forces "in control", in fact there seems to be nobody "in control" of Libya. The only thing reigning in Libya right now is the bad form of anarchy.

Good thing, then, that Iran hasn't sent a single soldier abroad. By my last count, they haven't started a single war since 1979, and yet you want to paint them as aggressors...why?There are no aggressors in Imperialism, only competitors. You don't have to start a war to be Imperialist either.

So what, precisely, is your position here? That as soon as anyone is harmed by any agent of the government, we should cheer the fall of that government even if it is a harbinger of greater oppression for the workers?

Defending the Syrian people from imperialism is my intent, and I don't think I've even once commented about the Syrian state's response other than to say that it has been unarguably heavy-handed...so I'm not defending their tactics at all.It's not about "cheering" either side. What it should be about is analyzing the brutalities of the elite and the socio-economic conditions of the masses have caused these protests to arise and how an independent leftist movement can be built in Syria. American Imperialism cannot bring that about, but neither can apologism for Bashar Assad.

When did I demand that working-class Syrians take a specific political stance? I've only said that because we cannot identify a viable working-class movement in opposition to the government, there is no reason for any progressive to support the opposition. The working classes are going on strike against the government, what working class element does the state have here?

Chrisstanford

8th February 2012, 19:12

Somehow I'm not quite convinced by one sentence from a right-wing Israeli news site quoting a story from a Saudi mouthpiece.

tehehehehehe

Chrisstanford

8th February 2012, 19:17

Assad isn't good by a long shot, but then again the people he is fighting aren't necessarily good either. Quite a few of them are know to be religious radicals. Look at lib ya, now you have the people we armed and helped trying to subjugate the rest of the people. They actually want to bring sharia law to the country, a country I must add, that prior to our intervention gave their citizens free everything
health care
electricity
school
money to get married
money to buy a car
money to buy a house

What we hear on the news about Syria should be ignored. Read about it. If you support Assad your supporting someone bad but someone who doesn't want to bring Sharia law to the country. If you support the opposition your supporting some good and a lot of bad that do want to bring sharia law to the country.

manic expression

8th February 2012, 22:53

No, I was saying your question is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not foreign or nationalist bourgeoisie are worse. Of course the war made Iraq a hellhole ... that's a totally irrelevant point though.
It's not irrelevant, it's a qualitative decline in the lives of workers because of the entry of imperialism. The false equivalence at work needs to be shown as false as it is: imperialism and a sovereign Syria are not equal when it comes to the interests of the workers.

It's obviously the relationship between those national minorities and the rulers. I suppose the Irish were just a "national minority" of the UK? Were the Indians? What makes someone a "national minority" of one nation and not a "colonized people" or "victims of Imperialism"? Many of these demographics in Iran and Syria have none of those features.
Like I was saying, you can't just throw out examples if you're numb to the specifics of them. Are the Kurds in Syria treated as the Indians were/are in the US? Are there wagon trains of Arab Syrians heading out east?

By the standards you're setting up, Makhno was an imperialist. So you're choice is either denouncing Makhno as an imperialist or refining your position.

Control of Lebanon, the Persian Gulf and Iraq clearly fulfill both economic and geopolitical goals for Iran. It is reductionist to think that all forms of Imperialism take the forms of oil and banana imports.
Control of Lebanon? Hezbollah is defending Lebanon from Zionist onslaughts. Clear-cut self-defense there.

The Persian Gulf isn't something Iran is trying to control, it's an area where the US is surrounding them with threats, so obviously they want to present some presence in order to counter that for self-defense.

Iraq? You mean the country that, at the behest of the imperialists, invaded Iran and started a horrifically bloody war? You mean the country that imperialism is presently occupying (Obama's phony pull-out never changed that)?

It's really beyond belief that you would attempt to brand Iran as an aggressor (http://www.peaceactioncleveland.org/files/imagemanagermodule/@random4655e8fc14dca/iran_surrounded.jpg) here. Entirely the opposite is true.

The "Syrian opposition" is clearly not some monolithic entity the way the Syrian State is. Saying it is "less progressive" is like saying the Egyptian uprising was "less progressive" because it featured Wahabist elements.
It's not monolithic, but that doesn't make it aligned with working-class interests. The Egyptian uprising didn't feature any significant Wahabist elements, the majority or protestors were and are rejecting religious sectarianism.

The US is hemorrhaging money to prop up the Karzai government which is desperately seeking to negotiate with the Taliban. The Taliban, of course, being a movement which was once a US client but had (as many so-called "clients" do) decided to go their own way.
The US is also using the money to maintain an important military presence that borders China and (drumroll) Iran. The point is puppet Karzai's regime would fall in a matter of hours if US backing disappeared, proving the idea that clients are not so easy to get rid of as you say.

This seems like an incredibly simplistic, black and white way of viewing it. What about the battles between the militias? The utter inability of the NTC to reign them in? The fact that anti-Gaddafi protesters are now protesting against the NTC? I don't see any pro-Zionist forces "in control", in fact there seems to be nobody "in control" of Libya. The only thing reigning in Libya right now is the bad form of anarchy.
You don't see any pro-Zionist forces in control of Libya? How about the warplanes that saved the rebels' hides and destroyed the Libyan government?

There are no aggressors in Imperialism, only competitors. You don't have to start a war to be Imperialist either.
Imperialism is an aggressor, do you not agree?

It's not about "cheering" either side. What it should be about is analyzing the brutalities of the elite and the socio-economic conditions of the masses have caused these protests to arise and how an independent leftist movement can be built in Syria. American Imperialism cannot bring that about, but neither can apologism for Bashar Assad.
"Brutality"? As I said, if you base your opposition to Assad's government on the fact that it's not morally pure then you are in for a great deal of disappointment. The question at hand is not whether it's using heavy-handed tactics, the question is whether the opposition deserves any progressive support or not. Rest assured that the opposition, from all we've seen, is not bashful about employing naked brutality either.

Yes, we should discuss how an independent leftist movement can be built in Syria, for it is most important, but I do not think that desire should lead us to the side of any opposition.

The working classes are going on strike against the government, what working class element does the state have here?
Let us look at the specifics of this strike. We've seen lockouts called "strikes" and presented as something populist when they're in fact an initiative of the capitalists before.

IrishWorker

9th February 2012, 00:51

Anti-nato military forces...which are, after all, firmly rooted in the proletarian camp, completely unopposed to any working class political initiative.
But tell me, what's your opinion on the relationship between these states and its military apparatuses and the working class, with its political organizations?

Cheerleading for a bourgoisie to rally workers and get them butchered, in defense of a bourgeois state and its capitalist class. Nice one.

Moral high ground? I don't think you would be able to find even a hint of such a move on my part, that is, if you were able to read what I write and actually comprehend it. To spell it out for you, I've pointed out the political, not moral, reasons for the adoption of the class position, for revolutionary politics, without any exceptions.

Isn't that great, And just to note your disgusting little self-aggrandizment, I don't think any honest person would argue from the position of equating his own situation (Northern Ireland) with that of the Middle East. Somehow it seems that only certain nationalities should even speak about certain political issues, innit right?

And another problem might be that what you call the ideological ivory towerism reveals what is perhaps dangerous for would be communist groups: the desire to become "relevant", by means of bootlicking and attaching yourself politically to bourgeois forces. But hey, I'm still waiting to hear just how the regimes in question advance class struggle and its revolutionary escalation.

And it's beyond me how political statements openly condemning military intervention and any bourgeois faction involved can be understood as putting yourself on the side of the big bad West. It's as if there's the absolute necessity of defending any regime which doesn't count as the West, a twisted form of orientalism to be sure, all the while disregarding what should be obvious, that workers' have no interest and should have no interest to defend the property of their own native capitalist class and to defend their own native state apparatus (both of which are the antagonists of the working class). But it's always same with you, isn't it, in the absence of open revolutionary struggle rally under the banner of the most big mouthed anti-American head of state hoping that somehow that will make the point, and it does make the point, that you don't give a rat's ass for all of the worker and communist militants who suffer under those same heels.

You're talking out of your arse, fool. This silly rants of yours bear little on the reality of my political position, which has nothing to do with providing support, explicit or implicit, by mistake.
I don't support military intervention, but neither do I support Ba'athist murderers. I don't support any bourgeois regime, and think that in this historical period, any notion of a progressive national borugeoisie is a dangerous delusion. Therefore, I oppose all factions of the bourgeoisie, be they based on nationality, religious inclination, ethnciity, political doctrine or the color of their fingernails. Most of all, I think that self-described communists who openly support capitalist states are crossing the class line.

I've been a member of this forum since 2009, I've always held my own against the Trendy Left.

But I have never in my time on Revleft been exposed to a more, wanna be somebody, give me rep, ball licking arse Imperialist pawn post.

Have fun in your Ivory Tower comrade, but just remember that western Imperialism loves you more than me. Thats something you can be "proud off".

But you play the Revleft drama queen card all you want, the only person in this debate who has crossed the "Class Line" is the person who ejaculates at the thought of Imperialist colonialism occupying Syria.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

9th February 2012, 04:19

It's not irrelevant, it's a qualitative decline in the lives of workers because of the entry of imperialism. The false equivalence at work needs to be shown as false as it is: imperialism and a sovereign Syria are not equal when it comes to the interests of the workers.

Imperialism is a broad category. It wasn't Imperialism per se, it was an Imperialist war. An internal civil war or a rebellion against an Imperial power can be just as brutal and draining as an externally imposed Imperialist intervention.

Like I was saying, you can't just throw out examples if you're numb to the specifics of them. Are the Kurds in Syria treated as the Indians were/are in the US? Are there wagon trains of Arab Syrians heading out east?

By the standards you're setting up, Makhno was an imperialist. So you're choice is either denouncing Makhno as an imperialist or refining your position.
The British didn't use wagon trains in India. Wagon trains and population settlement are not necessary conditions for Imperialism. Again, what aspects of being Imperialized did the Irish and Sri Lankans have which the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds do not.

Control of Lebanon? Hezbollah is defending Lebanon from Zionist onslaughts. Clear-cut self-defense there.Hezbollah is doing their thing against Israel (I don't know if their objectives are as high-minded and authentic as you do but that's that), however independently of that, Iran exploits that fact and sends Hezbollah resources in exchange for influence.

The Persian Gulf isn't something Iran is trying to control, it's an area where the US is surrounding them with threats, so obviously they want to present some presence in order to counter that for self-defense.
Of course its an area they are trying to control. So are the Saudis and so are the Americans. Hence at least part of the conflict ... the fact that it is surrounded by threats in the area and are justifiably worried about their security is not mutually exclusive with them also seeking national advantages by expanding their control over the Persian Gulf area.

Iraq? You mean the country that, at the behest of the imperialists, invaded Iran and started a horrifically bloody war? You mean the country that imperialism is presently occupying (Obama's phony pull-out never changed that)?
Two things. Saddam invaded Iraq at his own behest, and the Westerners gave him WMDs because he convinced them that his ends were the same as ends (at the time he was right). You're taking all the agency out of the local power here, Iraq had every interest in expanding its own power independently of being a Western client. The second thing is that Iraq may be occupied by the USA but the reality is that Iran outmaneuvered the hamfisted and idiotic American invasion and used it to expand their own power in the area. The Iranians aren't stupid, the USA was the aggressor in Iraq but Iran was the victor.

It's really beyond belief that you would attempt to brand Iran as an aggressor (http://www.peaceactioncleveland.org/files/imagemanagermodule/@random4655e8fc14dca/iran_surrounded.jpg) here. Entirely the opposite is true.Why are you so blatantly misrepresenting my argument? I never said Iran was an aggressor. That's not contradictory with thinking that they are Imperialists though.

It's not monolithic, but that doesn't make it aligned with working-class interests. The Egyptian uprising didn't feature any significant Wahabist elements, the majority or protestors were and are rejecting religious sectarianism.There was a huge Salafist element in the protests. What there was not was an Islamic chauvinist element ... the Salafists were smart enough to stand in solidarity, at least in the short term, with others.

The US is also using the money to maintain an important military presence that borders China and (drumroll) Iran. The point is puppet Karzai's regime would fall in a matter of hours if US backing disappeared, proving the idea that clients are not so easy to get rid of as you say.I disagree about the "point" ... it is that the USA lacks the economic and military power at this point to occupy a dozen countries for the sole purpose of propping up ineffective clients.

You don't see any pro-Zionist forces in control of Libya? How about the warplanes that saved the rebels' hides and destroyed the Libyan government?A warplane cannot dictate policy. I don't see how that is evidence that "Zionists" or whatever are now running Libya.

Imperialism is an aggressor, do you not agree?I don't personify vague general categories like "Imperialism". The American government might be an aggressor in a particular war, the Iranian government might in another, both because they are "Imperialist", but "Imperialism" is not an aggressor.

"Brutality"? As I said, if you base your opposition to Assad's government on the fact that it's not morally pure then you are in for a great deal of disappointment. The question at hand is not whether it's using heavy-handed tactics, the question is whether the opposition deserves any progressive support or not. Rest assured that the opposition, from all we've seen, is not bashful about employing naked brutality either.

Yes, we should discuss how an independent leftist movement can be built in Syria, for it is most important, but I do not think that desire should lead us to the side of any opposition.What is "progressive support" and who are you talking about when you discuss "the opposition"? Again, we should talk about why this opposition exists and how the socio-economic conditions of the country made the rebellions occur. Isn't that what a materialist analysis of these movements be all about? Now, that materialist analysis has nothing to do with this awkward manichean dualism which ignores the struggles of the people on the street in favor of an abstract geopolitical chess game between big Imperialist countries and a bunch of small supposedly anti-Imperialist ones.

Let us look at the specifics of this strike. We've seen lockouts called "strikes" and presented as something populist when they're in fact an initiative of the capitalists before. Other people posted about the strikes, I saw no reasons there to cast aspersions about the strikers. Should we ask such questions about all strikes? What about the Verizon workers? Perhaps they weren't good proles rising for their rights, they may have had ulterior motives ... come on, if there's evidence that these strikes were not legitimate working class struggle then that would be one thing but you're raising doubts without any evidence about workers struggling around the world.

Renegade Saint

9th February 2012, 06:31

manic expression

9th February 2012, 11:14

Imperialism is a broad category. It wasn't Imperialism per se, it was an Imperialist war. An internal civil war or a rebellion against an Imperial power can be just as brutal and draining as an externally imposed Imperialist intervention.
What war are you talking about? What "Imperial power" do you speak of? What political content do the words "brutal and draining" have?

The British didn't use wagon trains in India.
Then it's a good thing no one compared British colonization of India to US settler-state policies against the Indian peoples.

Hezbollah is doing their thing against Israel (I don't know if their objectives are as high-minded and authentic as you do but that's that), however independently of that, Iran exploits that fact and sends Hezbollah resources in exchange for influence.
Self-defense isn't high-minded. Anyway, Iran sending resources and therefore having some influence isn't imperialism. Anarchists sent resources to the common republican cause and thus had some influence in Republican Spain...doesn't make them imperialist.

Of course its an area they are trying to control. So are the Saudis and so are the Americans. Hence at least part of the conflict ... the fact that it is surrounded by threats in the area and are justifiably worried about their security is not mutually exclusive with them also seeking national advantages by expanding their control over the Persian Gulf area.
They're not trying to control it beyond countering imperialist aggression in the region. It's a matter of self-defense first and foremost. You might as well condemn someone for trying to "control" their own front porch as robbers try to get in the house.

Two things. Saddam invaded Iraq at his own behest, and the Westerners gave him WMDs because he convinced them that his ends were the same as ends (at the time he was right). You're taking all the agency out of the local power here, Iraq had every interest in expanding its own power independently of being a Western client. The second thing is that Iraq may be occupied by the USA but the reality is that Iran outmaneuvered the hamfisted and idiotic American invasion and used it to expand their own power in the area. The Iranians aren't stupid, the USA was the aggressor in Iraq but Iran was the victor.
Saddam was supported by the US all the way. Without that backing it's possible the war would have never happened. Iran never "expanded its power", people in Iraq turned to Iran precisely because it's a beacon of independence and sovereignty in a sea of imperialism.

Why are you so blatantly misrepresenting my argument? I never said Iran was an aggressor. That's not contradictory with thinking that they are Imperialists though.
I don't think I'm misrepresenting it. You just spent a few paragraphs trying to convince me that Iran is being imperialist by countering the US imperialist forces on its doorstep. Does that not imply aggression, and if it doesn't then what's your issue with it? If it's not aggressive toward anything or anyone then it's hardly worth the condemnations you've arrayed against it.

There was a huge Salafist element in the protests. What there was not was an Islamic chauvinist element ... the Salafists were smart enough to stand in solidarity, at least in the short term, with others.
Point me to the element. From everything we saw the vast majority of protestors were anti-sectarian. This continued even after Mubarak was kicked out. You're asking me to disregard that because of the imagined intentions of a minority, which I simply cannot do.

I disagree about the "point" ... it is that the USA lacks the economic and military power at this point to occupy a dozen countries for the sole purpose of propping up ineffective clients.
Karzai isn't ineffective, just ineffectual...exactly the way they want him.

But you underestimate imperialist force. If they're allowed to bomb a country, fund clients on the ground, engage in covert ops when necessary and control the borders then they have the instruments they need to assert their will.

A warplane cannot dictate policy. I don't see how that is evidence that "Zionists" or whatever are now running Libya.
Of course it can. If a warplane could make someone repaint their garage if that was the demand.

I don't personify vague general categories like "Imperialism". The American government might be an aggressor in a particular war, the Iranian government might in another, both because they are "Imperialist", but "Imperialism" is not an aggressor.
The Iranian government isn't...and hasn't been since 1979 when they kicked imperialism's client out. Doesn't that tell you something?

Imperialism is always an aggressor. There's no such thing as isolationist imperialism.

What is "progressive support" and who are you talking about when you discuss "the opposition"? Again, we should talk about why this opposition exists and how the socio-economic conditions of the country made the rebellions occur. Isn't that what a materialist analysis of these movements be all about? Now, that materialist analysis has nothing to do with this awkward manichean dualism which ignores the struggles of the people on the street in favor of an abstract geopolitical chess game between big Imperialist countries and a bunch of small supposedly anti-Imperialist ones.
Manichaean dualism? You could apply that to any philosophy of socialist class struggle, so I don't find that an appropriate charge.

Sure, analyzing those conditions is perfectly reasonable. Still, it won't make the opposition a leftist one even if we want it to be.

Other people posted about the strikes, I saw no reasons there to cast aspersions about the strikers. Should we ask such questions about all strikes? What about the Verizon workers? Perhaps they weren't good proles rising for their rights, they may have had ulterior motives ... come on, if there's evidence that these strikes were not legitimate working class struggle then that would be one thing but you're raising doubts without any evidence about workers struggling around the world.
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions, especially when imperialist disinformation (thus the thread we're presently posting in) is at work. What is termed a strike is not always a strike, and further not all strikes are progressive ones.

manic expression

9th February 2012, 11:20

The fact that manic expression even tries to argue that Syria isn't imperialist demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge of the region and why people shouldn't be wasting their time trying to address him point by point.

Hey manic expression; there's this new place called Lebanon, look it up sometime.

Theoretical knowledge is not a substitute for knowing about the place you're talking about.
Oh, wow, Syria sent soldiers to a country that essentially lacked a military after they requested aid from their neighbors (who are their neighbors primarily because British cartographers felt like drawing arbitrary shapes on a map when they left). What a bunch of imperialists. I guess that makes Trotsky imperialist because he led troops into Poland. :rolleyes:

If you actually believe that Syria is imperialist solely because they sent troops to a threatened Lebanon after it was requested...then I guess that's just that famous ISO materialism we've all come to know and love.

Thirsty Crow

9th February 2012, 12:15

I've been a member of this forum since 2009, I've always held my own against the Trendy Left. Wow, that must means something then, if you've been a member for what, 3 or so years? I'm impressed.

But I have never in my time on Revleft been exposed to a more, wanna be somebody, give me rep, ball licking arse Imperialist pawn post.You've got something against male-on-male ball licking? Might be a closet homophobe, eh?

Have fun in your Ivory Tower comrade, but just remember that western Imperialism loves you more than me. Thats something you can be "proud off".Yeah they adore me. We go to...dinner parties...all the time.

But you play the Revleft drama queen card all you want, the only person in this debate who has crossed the "Class Line" is the person who ejaculates at the thought of Imperialist colonialism occupying Syria.
That's a nice one, I might try to excite myself sometimes at the sight of things unusual for such acts. Maybe the empty room of NATO hq would do.

Thirsty Crow

9th February 2012, 12:41

Well, speaking of mindless, I've asked this about half a dozen times on this thread and gotten absolutely nothing in response: how is Syria imperialist?Others have emphasized the historical role of the Syrian state in relation to Lebanon, for instance. But I'm not interested in dissecting the actions of a particular state to find stuff I'd be able to write down as imperialist.
And here's why: I don't think that anyn distinction between "non-imperialist" and imperialist borugeois states is meaningful for communists in this historical period. As I've stated numerous times, there is no lesser evil for the working class, there is no bourgeois faction behind which we could rally in hope of progressive gains, and this represents, for me, a dangerous delusion.

If the opposition turns out to be pro-imperialist (which seems quite possible at the moment), what position would you hold in response?Very easy, the answer would be - resolute opposition. Again, as I've stated, I think communists must exhibit equal opposition towards any faction of the ruling class.
But then again, this begs the question of the function and effect of communist propaganda outside the territory engulfed by military clashes. I don't think it's possible for communists to become "more relevant" by abandoning their opposition to the ruling class as such, which is effectively accomplished when one side is chosen. In fact, I can hardly see how any effective action might be undertaken, to really influence the course of events, other than maintaining regular international contact - which means that we aim our criticism and analysis at existing communist forces, in this case, within Syria. Here it's very important to work for clarification, meaning no support for the bourgeoisie, which consequently means also an absolute refusal and opposition to military venture on behalf of the NATO.

Ah, yes, you'd probably repeat this over and over as if it meant something in relation to Syria.
How the hell does this not relate to Syria? Do you think that the majority of the people participating in the uprising are of class background other than proletarian?
What I want to stress, and I really think this is crucial, is that situations like this one are more or less open, and that it's vital for workers' to undertake autonomous action, to engage in a political consolidation as a class. If you wish to say that this is not possible now in Syria, then OK, I'm not claiming that I know for sure what exactly does this conflict enable the working class to do. If there is no possibility of work for political consolidation, then I'm afraid that the only thing left for me would be to condemn both factions (and it would really be futile to issue statements calling on the Syrian working class to rally to one bourgeois camp, as if me, or the organization I'm working in, could produce an effect in doing so), which would furthermore constitute, in my opinion, a grave danger for further political development.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

9th February 2012, 16:13

What war are you talking about? What "Imperial power" do you speak of? What political content do the words "brutal and draining" have?

Um the "Imperial power" is obviously the USA in the case of the invasion of Iraq. "Brutal" and "draining" are words in the English language, dunno what you're asking me there ... what ruined Iraq in 2003 was not Imperialism abstractly, but a very specific strategy of military invasion ... a strategy which can be employed to put down internal dissent as much as it can be employed by Imperialists to create a proxy. When you're a worker who is being shot by a tank, it doesn't matter whether that tank has an American flag or the flag of your supposed "sovereign state", the worker is still going to die and their family is still going to be unable to feed themselves as a result. The only real difference is in the scope.

Then it's a good thing no one compared British colonization of India to US settler-state policies against the Indian peoples.
I see... You still have not explained how the Kurds of Syria and Iran are any different from the Indians (funny how you assumed I meant "Native Americans" and not Indians in India), the Algerians, the Kurds of Turkey, or the Irish. You seem to have fetishized certain international borders, as if Imperialism is only Imperialism if it crosses those arbitrary lines.

Self-defense isn't high-minded. Anyway, Iran sending resources and therefore having some influence isn't imperialism. Anarchists sent resources to the common republican cause and thus had some influence in Republican Spain...doesn't make them imperialist.
Hezbollah is not the Lebanese nation, they are a political militia which stems from the Shiite demographic of Lebanon. They take up the cause of Lebanese independence because the utter failure of the Lebanese state to do so gave Hezbollah a good political opportunity. Insofar as Iran and Syria support Hezbollah it is not just out of kindness it is out of the fact that they act as proxies to extend Iranian and Syrian influence over the middle east to benefit their economic and geopolitical situation.

Saddam was supported by the US all the way. Without that backing it's possible the war would have never happened. Iran never "expanded its power", people in Iraq turned to Iran precisely because it's a beacon of independence and sovereignty in a sea of imperialism.
The Shiite-based political parties of Iraq went to Iran because they are a beacon of Shiite power, the "people of Iraq" did not look to it because it is a "beacon of independence and sovereignty" (tell that to the repressed minorities in Iran ...). The Sunni insurgents were not getting Iranian support in the same kind of way, because on the contrary the Sunni insurgents did NOT see Iran as a "beacon of independence and sovereignty" but instead as a potential threat.

I don't think I'm misrepresenting it. You just spent a few paragraphs trying to convince me that Iran is being imperialist by countering the US imperialist forces on its doorstep. Does that not imply aggression, and if it doesn't then what's your issue with it? If it's not aggressive toward anything or anyone then it's hardly worth the condemnations you've arrayed against it.
No, it implies opportunism. The US military invades Iraq without understanding the possible consequences because of hubris, then some very smart people in the IRGC realize that, by getting rid of Saddam for them, the US Army and Marines allowed for Iran to gain a large new proxy in the Middle East. The Iraqi government is slowly moving more and more towards the Iranian camp despite being in the supposedly pro-American government.

Point me to the element. From everything we saw the vast majority of protestors were anti-sectarian. This continued even after Mubarak was kicked out. You're asking me to disregard that because of the imagined intentions of a minority, which I simply cannot do.
There were anti-sectarian protesters in Syria too. That does not exclude the presence of Salafists. Al Nour's supporters were participants in the revolution and won 20% of the vote, and are Salafists. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was a major participant, as was the one in Syria.

Karzai isn't ineffective, just ineffectual...exactly the way they want him.

But you underestimate imperialist force. If they're allowed to bomb a country, fund clients on the ground, engage in covert ops when necessary and control the borders then they have the instruments they need to assert their will.
The USA cannot do that in every country in the world, and the people themselves are just as good at stopping foreign influence in the long term as any bourgeois police state ... people will never win their freedom from the power of foreign imperialists if victory needs the Syrian and Iranian state forces to counter American military power.

Of course it can. If a warplane could make someone repaint their garage if that was the demand.
What? A few NATO jets flying over Libya do not make sure that NATO can determine policy positions of the future Libyan government.

The Iranian government isn't...and hasn't been since 1979 when they kicked imperialism's client out. Doesn't that tell you something?

Imperialism is always an aggressor. There's no such thing as isolationist imperialism.
The Iranian government adopted the Imperial power of the Shah, particularly over the subject nations and Iran's position in the middle east as a central, nationalist power with a huge and developed economy.

Imperialism IS NOT A PERSON OR ORGANIZATION thus it cannot be an aggressor. American Imperialism can be aggressive but "Imperialism" without agents to instantiate it is an abstract term. Imperialism does not have to be an act of aggression it can also be opportunistic, and can even stem from a defensive conflict if the defenders defeat the aggressors and they go on offense.

Manichaean dualism? You could apply that to any philosophy of socialist class struggle, so I don't find that an appropriate charge.

Sure, analyzing those conditions is perfectly reasonable. Still, it won't make the opposition a leftist one even if we want it to be.
Most philosophies of class struggle focus on, well, class ... I can't think of any that view nation-states in a dualistic fashion though.

How can we say it isn't a Leftist one if we haven't even analyzed it yet? How can we determine the possibility for Leftism to develop without analysis of the protesters, the State, and what would happen to the socio-economic status of the people were the protests to get crushed? Or what policies from the Syrian state made these protests happen?

... clearly the opposition is diverse, there are Leftist elements and conservative/rightwing elements. The issue is not the political makeup of the so-called "leadership" but the social and economic conditions which led workers and petit bourgeoisie to go out on the streets.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions, especially when imperialist disinformation (thus the thread we're presently posting in) is at work. What is termed a strike is not always a strike, and further not all strikes are progressive ones.Imperialist disinformation AND SYRIAN DISINFORMATION ... come on, you don't think the Syrian state hasn't lied more than just a little? Again if you're going to cast aspersions over any working class participation in these protests without any evidence whatsoever, it is impossible to even have a serious debate.

Renegade Saint

9th February 2012, 16:48

Oh, wow, Syria sent soldiers to a country that essentially lacked a military after they requested aid from their neighbors (who are their neighbors primarily because British cartographers felt like drawing arbitrary shapes on a map when they left). What a bunch of imperialists. I guess that makes Trotsky imperialist because he led troops into Poland. :rolleyes:

If you actually believe that Syria is imperialist solely because they sent troops to a threatened Lebanon after it was requested...then I guess that's just that famous ISO materialism we've all come to know and love.
Oh, it was requested, that makes all the difference. Like when the internationally recognized government of Libya requested foreign military aid last year, or when the government of Bahrain did the same from Saudi Arabia. As long as the government "requests aid" from a bigger country it's not imperialism.

R_P_A_S

9th February 2012, 16:59

It is what it is, lets hope its true.

The Syrian regime and the Iranian regime are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it will be a cold day in hell when you see me on the same side as the Imperialists.

If you find yourself on the same side as the Imperialists you need to ask yourself some serious questions comrade. What happens in Syria and Iran is their business and no one else's.

you got no shame sitting cozy in your house playing cheerleader and playing into the fucking chess game that the US and Russia are playing with the innocent children of Syria. This is not a fucking video game.

IrishWorker

9th February 2012, 18:22

An intelligence report has revealed that British and Qatari troops are leading armed terror gangs in the Syrian city of Homs in their bloody battle against civilians and the Syrian army forces.

According to the Israeli website, debkafile, which is known for links to intelligence sources, “British and Qatari troops are directing rebel ammunition deliveries and tactics in the bloody battle for Homs”.

The report said that Britain’s foreign spying apparatus, MI6, has established four centers of operation in the city with the troops on the ground paving the way for an undercover Turkish military incursion into Syria.

The debkafile site said the presence of British and Qatari troops in Homs topped the agenda of Tuesday’s talks between President Assad government’s officials and head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Mikhail Fradkov.

Qatar makes little secret of supporting the Syrian opposition with cash, arms and political support.

But, the British new adventurism in Syria comes as a parliamentary report has warned that the British government will face huge financial problems if the military resolve to launch a military campaign on the same scale as the operation in Libya.

In 2011 Britain and France became part of NATO-led operations targeting Gaddafi regime in Libya.

According to official reports, Britain spent about €254mln on the military campaign in Libya. However, a publication in The Guardian at the end of last year contends that the Libyan campaign cost British taxpayers 1.75 billion pounds. This exceeds the originally planned sum by nearly sevenfold.

Given the situation, the British MPs have warned the government of David Cameron that it will face “difficult decisions” if it chooses to engage in yet another campaign. Nearly two billion pounds spent over the six months of the campaign in Libya could be more than the military can handle.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/225801.html

manic expression

9th February 2012, 21:15

Others have emphasized the historical role of the Syrian state in relation to Lebanon, for instance. But I'm not interested in dissecting the actions of a particular state to find stuff I'd be able to write down as imperialist.
And here's why: I don't think that anyn distinction between "non-imperialist" and imperialist borugeois states is meaningful for communists in this historical period. As I've stated numerous times, there is no lesser evil for the working class, there is no bourgeois faction behind which we could rally in hope of progressive gains, and this represents, for me, a dangerous delusion.
Straight up true or false, the workers of Iraq are worse off because of the imperialist invasion.

It is not a delusion, much less a dangerous one, to say "true" to the above statement. In fact, it is a dangerous delusion to think that the struggle against imperialism has no relevance to the lives and interests of the masses. It was that delusion that led leftists to refuse support to the anti-imperialists in Libya, and the workers of Libya payed the price.

Very easy, the answer would be - resolute opposition. Again, as I've stated, I think communists must exhibit equal opposition towards any faction of the ruling class.
But then again, this begs the question of the function and effect of communist propaganda outside the territory engulfed by military clashes. I don't think it's possible for communists to become "more relevant" by abandoning their opposition to the ruling class as such, which is effectively accomplished when one side is chosen. In fact, I can hardly see how any effective action might be undertaken, to really influence the course of events, other than maintaining regular international contact - which means that we aim our criticism and analysis at existing communist forces, in this case, within Syria. Here it's very important to work for clarification, meaning no support for the bourgeoisie, which consequently means also an absolute refusal and opposition to military venture on behalf of the NATO.
Well, I note with appreciation that you wouldn't support a rightist opposition. However, if that be the case, then whom do you support? Remember, we cannot imagine tendencies where they do not exist, we must grapple with things as they are. If there isn't a working-class movement in Syria, then the only option left for all progressives is to maintain the opposition to imperialism that you have so well expressed.

You bring up a valid point about what the significance is, but in the end this is all about opposing that which should be opposed and lending support along the same lines. I think it matters because what you stand for and against defines you...as just one example ANSWER has gotten a lot of attention from American workers and progressives because it was one of the first organizations to strongly oppose the invasion of Afghanistan back in 2001; it was a very small club back then that opposed that war, but now it's grown and people have worked with communists as a result.

How the hell does this not relate to Syria? Do you think that the majority of the people participating in the uprising are of class background other than proletarian?
What I want to stress, and I really think this is crucial, is that situations like this one are more or less open, and that it's vital for workers' to undertake autonomous action, to engage in a political consolidation as a class. If you wish to say that this is not possible now in Syria, then OK, I'm not claiming that I know for sure what exactly does this conflict enable the working class to do. If there is no possibility of work for political consolidation, then I'm afraid that the only thing left for me would be to condemn both factions (and it would really be futile to issue statements calling on the Syrian working class to rally to one bourgeois camp, as if me, or the organization I'm working in, could produce an effect in doing so), which would furthermore constitute, in my opinion, a grave danger for further political development.
I think that working-class participation and working-class organization are two different things, and that the former can contribute to reactionary causes.

On your second point about autonomous action and political consolidation, I don't disagree. I think those are very worthy goals and points to make. I only disagree in that in the event that there is a rightist opposition, I wouldn't outwardly condemn the Syrian state because that would be tantamount to adding to imperialist propaganda (usually whenever you voice a negative opinion about a government the US doesn't like, it's taken as support for imperialist policy...I've seen the same sort of thing play out in other NATO countries as well, although perhaps it's different elsewhere).

manic expression

9th February 2012, 21:48

Um the "Imperial power" is obviously the USA in the case of the invasion of Iraq. "Brutal" and "draining" are words in the English language, dunno what you're asking me there ... what ruined Iraq in 2003 was not Imperialism abstractly, but a very specific strategy of military invasion ... a strategy which can be employed to put down internal dissent as much as it can be employed by Imperialists to create a proxy. When you're a worker who is being shot by a tank, it doesn't matter whether that tank has an American flag or the flag of your supposed "sovereign state", the worker is still going to die and their family is still going to be unable to feed themselves as a result. The only real difference is in the scope.
It wasn't clear which war you were referring to. I didn't want to mistakenly talk about Libya or Afghanistan if you meant Iraq.

Anyway, I think you're looking at this with some blinders. If you're a worker who is being shot by a tank, it doesn't matter what the flag is, but at the same time tanks flying certain flags shoot at more workers in more places with more frequency.

You say you aren't going to worry about "scope", but then you're missing the whole picture. Why is that tank there? What is its purpose? What is the composition of its commanders? How many workers does its presence threaten? When you openly refuse to consider the bigger picture, you end up with myopic politics that can't differentiate between entities that are not alike. In this case, imperialism is walking knee-deep in the blood of workers in multiple countries and is now knocking on Syria's door...you simply cannot close your eyes and tell yourself that it makes no difference if it gets into Syria or not. There is a qualitative difference when it comes to the lives and interests of the masses...imperialism is the most horrifying enemy that the workers face today, any setback it experiences is a positive development from the perspective of the many.

I see... You still have not explained how the Kurds of Syria and Iran are any different from the Indians (funny how you assumed I meant "Native Americans" and not Indians in India), the Algerians, the Kurds of Turkey, or the Irish. You seem to have fetishized certain international borders, as if Imperialism is only Imperialism if it crosses those arbitrary lines.
Huh? No, I actually assumed you meant Indian Indians and not NDNs. The British didn't create a settler state in Hindustan (I'm calling it that to avoid confusion from now on), the only ones you could accuse of that would be the Portuguese in Goa and even there it's not really comparable too much to the straight-up genocide of the NDN peoples.

The Kurds of Syria are a minority nationality, and while they are not treated equitably they are not subject to colonialist policies. If you want to tell us how Syria is colonizing its areas of Kurdistan, please do so.

Hezbollah is not the Lebanese nation, they are a political militia which stems from the Shiite demographic of Lebanon. They take up the cause of Lebanese independence because the utter failure of the Lebanese state to do so gave Hezbollah a good political opportunity. Insofar as Iran and Syria support Hezbollah it is not just out of kindness it is out of the fact that they act as proxies to extend Iranian and Syrian influence over the middle east to benefit their economic and geopolitical situation.
So they have some influence in the region. Big deal, that doesn't make them imperialist and it doesn't even make them reactionary. Iran's interest is in countering the Zionist monster that all progressives oppose, and instead of most of us they're actually helping those in the crosshairs and coming to the aid of the perennially oppressed peoples of that region.

The Shiite-based political parties of Iraq went to Iran because they are a beacon of Shiite power, the "people of Iraq" did not look to it because it is a "beacon of independence and sovereignty" (tell that to the repressed minorities in Iran ...). The Sunni insurgents were not getting Iranian support in the same kind of way, because on the contrary the Sunni insurgents did NOT see Iran as a "beacon of independence and sovereignty" but instead as a potential threat.
And to where did the Sunni insurgents look? Oh, right, Syria...because it is also a beacon of independence and sovereignty. Due to the political winds of that time, religious sectarianism shaped viewpoints, but those views always looked to anti-imperialist powers when they were faced with imperialism.

No, it implies opportunism. The US military invades Iraq without understanding the possible consequences because of hubris, then some very smart people in the IRGC realize that, by getting rid of Saddam for them, the US Army and Marines allowed for Iran to gain a large new proxy in the Middle East. The Iraqi government is slowly moving more and more towards the Iranian camp despite being in the supposedly pro-American government.
Ha, I'm sure they also realized that the US Army and Marines were setting up shop right on their border...while setting up right on their eastern border. Whatever prospects of an inevitably powerless government being more friendly than Saddam, I think there were other things that made it a net loss.

There were anti-sectarian protesters in Syria too. That does not exclude the presence of Salafists. Al Nour's supporters were participants in the revolution and won 20% of the vote, and are Salafists. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was a major participant, as was the one in Syria.
The question here is not whether there is sectarianism in Syria, the chief concern is if the opposition is pro-imperialist. We've seen this dance before, and in Libya there were anti-imperialist voices that suddenly disappeared as the rebels grew more desperate and more overbearing over anti-Gaddafi elements.

Al Nour has been pretty supportive of solidarity with Christians. Egyptians know that their Islamic golden age was largely because of tolerance for the peoples of the book, so the tendency is to look for reconciliation and not aggression. There are undoubtedly some truly intolerant forces there, but they've been denounced by just about everyone and have lost most any sympathy among the general population. The Muslim Brotherhood, at least in Egypt, is not what it's made out to be. I know someone who's very into it and s/he's not at all against people of other faiths.

The USA cannot do that in every country in the world, and the people themselves are just as good at stopping foreign influence in the long term as any bourgeois police state ... people will never win their freedom from the power of foreign imperialists if victory needs the Syrian and Iranian state forces to counter American military power.
The US probably could, but it doesn't need to. It's all about strategy. They use client states and allied states when possible, and for the rest any mix of air or ground power is essentially enough to dictate matters when the opportunity exists. Syria does not present them with that opportunity at this moment, but if it should then the danger to the masses of Syria is a mortal one.

What? A few NATO jets flying over Libya do not make sure that NATO can determine policy positions of the future Libyan government.
Uh, yes it did. Why do you think they waited right until Benghazi was about to fall to Libyan forces? Why do you think they initiated negotiations for at least a week beforehand? They were squeezing the rebels, putting them in as desperate a position as they could, getting concession after concession. Then they destroyed Libyan air superiority, funded a smaller core of rebel troops whose loyalty they could then count on and took power over the country through their new client.

When a country is desert meeting ocean, air power can determine policy just fine.

The Iranian government adopted the Imperial power of the Shah, particularly over the subject nations and Iran's position in the middle east as a central, nationalist power with a huge and developed economy.
The Shah's regime itself wasn't imperialist, but whatever it's not important, he's gone.

Imperialism IS NOT A PERSON OR ORGANIZATION thus it cannot be an aggressor. American Imperialism can be aggressive but "Imperialism" without agents to instantiate it is an abstract term. Imperialism does not have to be an act of aggression it can also be opportunistic, and can even stem from a defensive conflict if the defenders defeat the aggressors and they go on offense.
Um, what? So what do you think imperialism is? A zeitgeist? An abstract state of mind? A flavor of ice cream?

Imperialism depends on certain types of organizations, organized in a certain way. It has to do with finance capital and with its connection to the state and its military, as well as with the policies taken by all those agents for the common cause of the collection of criminally-gotten currency.

There are only a few rare cases when imperialism is attacked first, and even then it's largely because imperialism is somewhere it has no right to be. Remember the Maine!

Most philosophies of class struggle focus on, well, class ... I can't think of any that view nation-states in a dualistic fashion though.
And most of those philosophies say something like "there are two sides of class struggle, and whoever is not on one side is on the other". Manichaean enough for you?

How can we say it isn't a Leftist one if we haven't even analyzed it yet? How can we determine the possibility for Leftism to develop without analysis of the protesters, the State, and what would happen to the socio-economic status of the people were the protests to get crushed? Or what policies from the Syrian state made these protests happen?
Where would you like to begin?

... clearly the opposition is diverse, there are Leftist elements and conservative/rightwing elements. The issue is not the political makeup of the so-called "leadership" but the social and economic conditions which led workers and petit bourgeoisie to go out on the streets.
I disagree. The same social and economic conditions that spurn leftist movements are the same ones that spurn rightist ones.

Imperialist disinformation AND SYRIAN DISINFORMATION ... come on, you don't think the Syrian state hasn't lied more than just a little? Again if you're going to cast aspersions over any working class participation in these protests without any evidence whatsoever, it is impossible to even have a serious debate.
Right, because Syrian media outlets have so much influence over western airwaves.

manic expression

9th February 2012, 21:54

Oh, it was requested, that makes all the difference. Like when the internationally recognized government of Libya requested foreign military aid last year, or when the government of Bahrain did the same from Saudi Arabia. As long as the government "requests aid" from a bigger country it's not imperialism.
Bahrain requested aid because it wanted to defend its pro-imperialist monarchy from progressive demonstrators. Lebanon requested aid because it was being menaced by Zionist belligerence. The fact that you'd even try to draw a line between the two is pretty absurd.

So yes, requests for aid make a signal difference if the government is a sovereign one and not an imperialist puppet state.

And don't mock us with the rebels of Libya being "internationally recognized". Let's call them what they were/are: "NATO recognized".

Sinister Cultural Marxist

9th February 2012, 22:48

It wasn't clear which war you were referring to. I didn't want to mistakenly talk about Libya or Afghanistan if you meant Iraq.

Anyway, I think you're looking at this with some blinders. If you're a worker who is being shot by a tank, it doesn't matter what the flag is, but at the same time tanks flying certain flags shoot at more workers in more places with more frequency.

You say you aren't going to worry about "scope", but then you're missing the whole picture. Why is that tank there? What is its purpose? What is the composition of its commanders? How many workers does its presence threaten? When you openly refuse to consider the bigger picture, you end up with myopic politics that can't differentiate between entities that are not alike. In this case, imperialism is walking knee-deep in the blood of workers in multiple countries and is now knocking on Syria's door...you simply cannot close your eyes and tell yourself that it makes no difference if it gets into Syria or not. There is a qualitative difference when it comes to the lives and interests of the masses...imperialism is the most horrifying enemy that the workers face today, any setback it experiences is a positive development from the perspective of the many.

Well thats a better analysis but I disagree with you, the difference is not qualitative it is quantitative. The USA is a bigger Imperialist power so its tanks are involved in putting down more worker's movements, it doesn't mean that the way they exploit workers is substantially worse. The motives behind the Syrians and Americans are the same in both cases-to make sure that the workers know their place.

Huh? No, I actually assumed you meant Indian Indians and not NDNs. The British didn't create a settler state in Hindustan (I'm calling it that to avoid confusion from now on), the only ones you could accuse of that would be the Portuguese in Goa and even there it's not really comparable too much to the straight-up genocide of the NDN peoples.

The Kurds of Syria are a minority nationality, and while they are not treated equitably they are not subject to colonialist policies. If you want to tell us how Syria is colonizing its areas of Kurdistan, please do so.

What policies did the British pursue in India that are not present in Syrian Kurdistan? Denying the local communities their cultural, economic and political autonomy, denying them equal protection under the law, and imposing an external and ethnically exclusive economic elite, all for the point of strengthening the stability and safety of the main economic and political powerholders.

So they have some influence in the region. Big deal, that doesn't make them imperialist and it doesn't even make them reactionary. Iran's interest is in countering the Zionist monster that all progressives oppose, and instead of most of us they're actually helping those in the crosshairs and coming to the aid of the perennially oppressed peoples of that region.

It's influence that they spread to protect their nation's self-interests.

As for "countering the zionist monster" or whatever, the fact that they are opposing another Imperialist state is not mutually exclusive with

And to where did the Sunni insurgents look? Oh, right, Syria...because it is also a beacon of independence and sovereignty. Due to the political winds of that time, religious sectarianism shaped viewpoints, but those views always looked to anti-imperialist powers when they were faced with imperialism.

Did they? Sunni insurgents looked more to al Qaeda than Syria. If anything Syria was somewhat willing to cut deals with the USA to end the Iraq insurgency where it helped their interests.

Ha, I'm sure they also realized that the US Army and Marines were setting up shop right on their border...while setting up right on their eastern border. Whatever prospects of an inevitably powerless government being more friendly than Saddam, I think there were other things that made it a net loss.

A net loss? On the contrary, the USA was the big loser in Iraq. The US has bases in Afghanistan and Iraq but these are incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain, and are very vulnerable to Iranian attack. On the other hand, Iran has substantial influence over the domestic elites. If the US attacked Iran, American targets in Iraq would be very vulnerable and the US would be unable to ensure that the Iraqis remain loyal to them.

Saddam was a bigger obstacle to Iranian domination of Iraq than

The question here is not whether there is sectarianism in Syria, the chief concern is if the opposition is pro-imperialist. We've seen this dance before, and in Libya there were anti-imperialist voices that suddenly disappeared as the rebels grew more desperate and more overbearing over anti-Gaddafi elements.

Yes and that will always happen in any revolution against a tyrannical state. That is why it is important for Leftists not to support such states ... they tend to produce revolutions which are easy for greedy outsiders to exploit. Of course, this does not mean that "the opposition" as a monolithic bloc are pro-Imperialist and that the opposition is not unable to make pragmatic short-term deals with foreign outsiders (the Taliban were more than happy to take American arms, and Tito's Partisans quite liked British guns).

Without an actual military occupation there is no way for the US to impose a government on anybody.

Al Nour has been pretty supportive of solidarity with Christians. Egyptians know that their Islamic golden age was largely because of tolerance for the peoples of the book, so the tendency is to look for reconciliation and not aggression. There are undoubtedly some truly intolerant forces there, but they've been denounced by just about everyone and have lost most any sympathy among the general population. The Muslim Brotherhood, at least in Egypt, is not what it's made out to be. I know someone who's very into it and s/he's not at all against people of other faiths.

Al Nour has been "supportive" of solidarity with Christians, as have many Syrian Salafists. However, with the lack of state violence it was easy for the camaraderie to exist. Now that the revolution has happened tensions are rising however.

Why would the Egyptians and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt be much more attached to the "golden days" of Islam than the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria?

Uh, yes it did. Why do you think they waited right until Benghazi was about to fall to Libyan forces? Why do you think they initiated negotiations for at least a week beforehand? They were squeezing the rebels, putting them in as desperate a position as they could, getting concession after concession. Then they destroyed Libyan air superiority, funded a smaller core of rebel troops whose loyalty they could then count on and took power over the country through their new client.

When a country is desert meeting ocean, air power can determine policy just fine.

Yes NATO made it a point to ensure that the rebels were squeezed, but this does not mean that NATO can actually dictate policy over Libya right now. Their supposed puppets in the NTC can't even control Benghazi let alone Tripoli, Misrata etc.

Um, what? So what do you think imperialism is? A zeitgeist? An abstract state of mind? A flavor of ice cream?

Imperialism depends on certain types of organizations, organized in a certain way. It has to do with finance capital and with its connection to the state and its military, as well as with the policies taken by all those agents for the common cause of the collection of criminally-gotten currency.

There are only a few rare cases when imperialism is attacked first, and even then it's largely because imperialism is somewhere it has no right to be. Remember the Maine!

Imperialism is an economic relationship. I know what it is in terms of the state, finance etc, the point is that its not a subjective entity in of itself. As I said, American Imperialism harms people, British and Chinese Imperialism too, but not Imperialism as a general category.

A great example of attempted defensive Imperialism is the push by Iran to take over Southern Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Another would be any number of wars between France, Spain, Russia, Turkey and Britain where Imperial holdings would change hands based not on who started the war but on who won the war. Yeah the Spanish American war was illegitimate, but that's only one example.

And most of those philosophies say something like "there are two sides of class struggle, and whoever is not on one side is on the other". Manichaean enough for you?

Class struggle is constantly breaking down however, the system is unstable precisely because it is a dualistic system.

Where would you like to begin?

I think I've given some alright analysis already of the various events on different threads. Certainly it's better than all these threads which talk about Israeli and American machinations against Syria but do not bother to mention the Syrian people or working class even once.

I disagree. The same social and economic conditions that spurn leftist movements are the same ones that spurn rightist ones.

Usually because both movements arise in the same context.

Right, because Syrian media outlets have so much influence over western airwaves.

They apparently do over Leftist internet forums ...

manic expression

9th February 2012, 23:23

Well thats a better analysis but I disagree with you, the difference is not qualitative it is quantitative. The USA is a bigger Imperialist power so its tanks are involved in putting down more worker's movements, it doesn't mean that the way they exploit workers is substantially worse. The motives behind the Syrians and Americans are the same in both cases-to make sure that the workers know their place.
I think the experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere put this to task. More tanks shooting more workers, I think the equation becomes. We cannot ignore the effect this has on workers' interests and lives.

What policies did the British pursue in India that are not present in Syrian Kurdistan? Denying the local communities their cultural, economic and political autonomy, denying them equal protection under the law, and imposing an external and ethnically exclusive economic elite, all for the point of strengthening the stability and safety of the main economic and political powerholders.
Just off the top of my head (not something I've studied in-depth): partitioning of the entire region and needlessly precipitating one of the most brutal examples of sectarian butchery of the 20th Century; forcing the growing of cash crops to fuel enforced trade upon other peoples (Indian farmers were forced to grow opium to be exported illegally to China, and when prices fell because of saturation of the market aka mass opium addiction in China, farmers starved because they couldn't go back to subsistence farming); using feudal principalities as a proxy for controlling the populace.

It's influence that they spread to protect their nation's self-interests.

As for "countering the zionist monster" or whatever, the fact that they are opposing another Imperialist state is not mutually exclusive with
That's quite a broad claim. You might as well accuse the anarchists of Catalonia for "spreading their influence to protect their government's self-interests" when they sent soldiers to aid the workers of Zaragoza.

Did they? Sunni insurgents looked more to al Qaeda than Syria. If anything Syria was somewhat willing to cut deals with the USA to end the Iraq insurgency where it helped their interests.
No one really looked to al Qaeda, in fact a lot of them used the US to take out al Qaeda-related groups (which was used by Bush and Obama to say the insurgency was defeated when in fact they cut a deal with them). Syrian influence was there (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/world/africa/07iht-syria.1.7781943.html).

A net loss? On the contrary, the USA was the big loser in Iraq. The US has bases in Afghanistan and Iraq but these are incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain, and are very vulnerable to Iranian attack. On the other hand, Iran has substantial influence over the domestic elites. If the US attacked Iran, American targets in Iraq would be very vulnerable and the US would be unable to ensure that the Iraqis remain loyal to them.

Saddam was a bigger obstacle to Iranian domination of Iraq than
The US didn't make out great but it didn't fail at every objective, it's made some gains in terms of regional presence, access to resources and the like. I'm not learned enough to say what the strategic situation would look like in the event of open conflict between the US and Iran, but what I can say is that US military bases are used as staging points for airstrikes that no power has proven capable of effectively countering. Even if what you say is true in that the US would be in a hole (which I doubt), workers would die in great numbers. This is what I'm talking about: imperialism, even when it loses, takes workers down with it, to the tune of millions (see Vietnam).

It's much better for us all to keep imperialism out in the first place.

Yes and that will always happen in any revolution against a tyrannical state. That is why it is important for Leftists not to support such states ... they tend to produce revolutions which are easy for greedy outsiders to exploit. Of course, this does not mean that "the opposition" as a monolithic bloc are pro-Imperialist and that the opposition is not unable to make pragmatic short-term deals with foreign outsiders (the Taliban were more than happy to take American arms, and Tito's Partisans quite liked British guns).
That "tyrannical state" was better for the Libyan workers than the imperialist client that's come in its place. This wasn't a story of a good working-class movement being co-opted at the last minute by mean elites, it was a story of a rightist movement that suppressed its leftist members and grew more rightist as it had to make prostrate itself to imperialism.

It means that non-monolithic oppositions become monolithic sooner or later if they are to be viable, and if they are not decidedly dyed-in-the-wool leftist then they're probably going to be rightist pro-imperialist.

Assuming what you say is true, Tito's Partisans is just the kind of example I mean. They realized that even though the British were capitalist and colonialist and imperialist (all at the same time, no less), it was preferable to accept their support than to be defeated by the Nazis. Again: not all ruling classes are the same.

Without an actual military occupation there is no way for the US to impose a government on anybody.
I disagree. Hell, they didn't even need airstrikes to impose a government on Guatemala.

Al Nour has been "supportive" of solidarity with Christians, as have many Syrian Salafists. However, with the lack of state violence it was easy for the camaraderie to exist. Now that the revolution has happened tensions are rising however.
Maybe in some quarters but if it is then it's very low-key and marginal. It's the memory of common struggle that people are looking to, not making trouble with their fellow countrymen. It's not a bond that anyone is soon to forget, and in some ways it's the most important legacy of the whole thing.

If tensions are at all rising (which I highly, highly doubt), then I guarantee you it is the work of imperialists, not of the Egyptian people.

Why would the Egyptians and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt be much more attached to the "golden days" of Islam than the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria?
IIRC the MB hasn't been a notable factor in Syria since the 70's.

Yes NATO made it a point to ensure that the rebels were squeezed, but this does not mean that NATO can actually dictate policy over Libya right now. Their supposed puppets in the NTC can't even control Benghazi let alone Tripoli, Misrata etc.
I don't think they're very concerned that the NTC is toothless. It only drives home the point that NATO bombs decided things, not anyone in Benghazi. So long as the oil fields stay working and the borders are secure, I think the imperialists would be happy with a little instability...it poses far less of a threat than unity.

Imperialism is an economic relationship. I know what it is in terms of the state, finance etc, the point is that its not a subjective entity in of itself. As I said, American Imperialism harms people, British and Chinese Imperialism too, but not Imperialism as a general category.

A great example of attempted defensive Imperialism is the push by Iran to take over Southern Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Another would be any number of wars between France, Spain, Russia, Turkey and Britain where Imperial holdings would change hands based not on who started the war but on who won the war. Yeah the Spanish American war was illegitimate, but that's only one example.
Wow, that's a new one. Iran is imperialist because it pushed Iraqi forces back into Iraq during a war it didn't start.

Anyway, if you know about finance and the state then why are you accusing Iran of imperialism? What Iranian finance capital is the epicenter of all this imagined imperialism?

Class struggle is constantly breaking down however, the system is unstable precisely because it is a dualistic system.
Right, class struggle in our epoch is dualistic.

I think I've given some alright analysis already of the various events on different threads. Certainly it's better than all these threads which talk about Israeli and American machinations against Syria but do not bother to mention the Syrian people or working class even once.
I don't doubt you have, hopefully I'll come across it. I would take exception to the idea that I haven't mentioned the Syrian working class, I've done that quite a bit I think.

Usually because both movements arise in the same context.
Exactly.

They apparently do over Leftist internet forums ...
If they do then they aren't very good at it. :D

~Spectre

10th February 2012, 00:20

Straight up true or false right now: the people of Iraq are worse off because of the imperialist invasion.

It's the wrong question. Iraq was "better" than both it's pre-invasion and post invasion phase, back when it was a U.S. client. That fact isn't a good argument for imperialism, in the same way that your question isn't a good argument for backing the Iranian and Syrian states.

Likewise, Iranian intervention(the kind you're praising), did make post-invasion Iraq a lot worse.

Always remember, the Iranian state is prepared to fight to the last Arab, just not elite Persians.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

10th February 2012, 00:41

I think the experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere put this to task. More tanks shooting more workers, I think the equation becomes. We cannot ignore the effect this has on workers' interests and lives.

I'm not so sure about this at all, these various national bourgeois governments have all had to put down many smaller revolts and worker's movements. That Imperialism does so on a larger scale is because of its global scope, not because the exploitation is so much worse or anything like that.

Just off the top of my head (not something I've studied in-depth): partitioning of the entire region and needlessly precipitating one of the most brutal examples of sectarian butchery of the 20th Century; forcing the growing of cash crops to fuel enforced trade upon other peoples (Indian farmers were forced to grow opium to be exported illegally to China, and when prices fell because of saturation of the market aka mass opium addiction in China, farmers starved because they couldn't go back to subsistence farming); using feudal principalities as a proxy for controlling the populace.
Imperialism in India predated partition. As for the exploitation of Indian land, labor and resources by British Capital without the autonomous power of the local people and supporting factions of local elites to control the population, how is that different from Syrian Kurdistan?

That's quite a broad claim. You might as well accuse the anarchists of Catalonia for "spreading their influence to protect their government's self-interests" when they sent soldiers to aid the workers of Zaragoza.
Did the Anarchists of Catalonia have a bourgeois economic model? Did they utilize the exploitation of labor or support those who did when they spread their influence?

No one really looked to al Qaeda, in fact a lot of them used the US to take out al Qaeda-related groups (which was used by Bush and Obama to say the insurgency was defeated when in fact they cut a deal with them). Syrian influence was there (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/world/africa/07iht-syria.1.7781943.html).
That article implies that Syria was there for Imperialist reasons, not anti-American ones ... i.e that they saw that American influence over Iraq was drawing down and that they had an opportunity to bolster factions there which are more likely to be friendly to their own government.

The US didn't make out great but it didn't fail at every objective, it's made some gains in terms of regional presence, access to resources and the like. I'm not learned enough to say what the strategic situation would look like in the event of open conflict between the US and Iran, but what I can say is that US military bases are used as staging points for airstrikes that no power has proven capable of effectively countering. Even if what you say is true in that the US would be in a hole (which I doubt), workers would die in great numbers. This is what I'm talking about: imperialism, even when it loses, takes workers down with it, to the tune of millions (see Vietnam).

It's much better for us all to keep imperialism out in the first place.
Imperialism takes workers down with it ... but so do bourgeois nationalist regimes like the Syrian or Libyan ones.

Iran is much larger than any country the US has tried to attack since the US went to war with China in Korea, and on top of that it is much better entrenched and has an independent military-industrial complex. As a country it is unable to take on the US directly but it's no pushover, and those bases in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily be turned into a huge liability by Iran (especially considering the fact that the IRGC specializes in asymmetrical warfare). The US could blow much of Iran's infrastructure to smithereens, but fully negating Iran's ability to fight would require deploying a far greater force to the Middle East than what exists there right now. In other words, American Imperial power may not be a paper tiger, but it's not nearly as assured as it looks at first sight. Iraq and Afghanistan both act as proof of the limits of US Imperialism, and Iran is above and beyond those limits. Hence the reason the US is trying its very hardest to prevent an Israeli attack ... the US is hardly exited about the prospect of incurring the costs of a new Imperial venture while it has still not recovered from the massive costs of two earlier ones.

That "tyrannical state" was better for the Libyan workers than the imperialist client that's come in its place. This wasn't a story of a good working-class movement being co-opted at the last minute by mean elites, it was a story of a rightist movement that suppressed its leftist members and grew more rightist as it had to make prostrate itself to imperialism.

It means that non-monolithic oppositions become monolithic sooner or later if they are to be viable, and if they are not decidedly dyed-in-the-wool leftist then they're probably going to be rightist pro-imperialist.

Assuming what you say is true, Tito's Partisans is just the kind of example I mean. They realized that even though the British were capitalist and colonialist and imperialist (all at the same time, no less), it was preferable to accept their support than to be defeated by the Nazis. Again: not all ruling classes are the same.
I still don't see where this supposed monolithic Libyan pro-Imperialist opposition is supposed to be.

So not all ruling classes are the same ... why can we not let the Syrians make that distinction? Why was Tito immune from British influence when the Syrians by accepting American or British help out of desperation necessarily makes them American or British puppets in the long run?

I disagree. Hell, they didn't even need airstrikes to impose a government on Guatemala.
Thats because the Bashar Assads of Guatemala were on the same side as America.

Maybe in some quarters but if it is then it's very low-key and marginal. It's the memory of common struggle that people are looking to, not making trouble with their fellow countrymen. It's not a bond that anyone is soon to forget, and in some ways it's the most important legacy of the whole thing.

If tensions are at all rising (which I highly, highly doubt), then I guarantee you it is the work of imperialists, not of the Egyptian people.

IIRC the MB hasn't been a notable factor in Syria since the 70's.
The MB was driven underground after Hama in the 80s but it still has a role in the Syrian opposition. I'd still like to know why the Egyptians are somehow more immune to sectarianism than the Syrians.

Anyways the point is that the Syrian oppositionists are not necessarily any more sectarian than those in Egypt, except insofar as the Syrian government has actively tried to cause divisions between the opposition and Alawite/Christian/Druze minorities.

I don't think they're very concerned that the NTC is toothless. It only drives home the point that NATO bombs decided things, not anyone in Benghazi. So long as the oil fields stay working and the borders are secure, I think the imperialists would be happy with a little instability...it poses far less of a threat than unity.
The power in Libya is in the hands of the militias, which are separate from both NATO and the NTC. This is why the militias have begun fighting each other ... they know that they are the folks with de facto power in Libya and as such they see themselves as in competition with one another.

Wow, that's a new one. Iran is imperialist because it pushed Iraqi forces back into Iraq during a war it didn't start.

Anyway, if you know about finance and the state then why are you accusing Iran of imperialism? What Iranian finance capital is the epicenter of all this imagined imperialism?
The IRGC has become a major economic force not only in Iran but in the general area, thanks to its political power and overall wealth. The IRGC, as a body which has a large portion of Iranian financial and economic capital (it is not just an army but has substantial economic assets, as well as the capacity to import things which the Iranian state must do in a clandestine manner), as well as unique military and political power, is the main vehicle of Iranian Imperialism.

Iran isn't imperialist because it pushed Iraqi forces back but because it wanted to expand its polity over the Shiite areas of Iraq in the process.

Right, class struggle in our epoch is dualistic.
And state struggle isn't. A dualistic struggle between states is equivalent to arguing for a dualistic struggle within the bourgeoisie ... the elements within the bourgeoisie are fundamentally more similar than different, likewise between states. All modern states uphold and protect the property rights of bourgeoisie within their nations, and do not exist to defend the "sovereignty" of the workers or whatever else.

I don't doubt you have, hopefully I'll come across it. I would take exception to the idea that I haven't mentioned the Syrian working class, I've done that quite a bit I think.
OK maybe you have I was speaking of a lot of the articles people put up about how the Syrian state is an innocent victim of foreign meddling.

Yehuda Stern

10th February 2012, 12:27

Bahrain requested aid because it wanted to defend its pro-imperialist monarchy from progressive demonstrators. Lebanon requested aid because it was being menaced by Zionist belligerence.

Well, that's simply not true. Lebanon requested aid because it wanted to muzzle the Palestinian guerrillas. Syrian presence was requested by the most vile anti-Palestinian forces in Lebanon, and met with Zionist approval. The Syrian regime then proceeded to join in the butchery at Tel A-Zaatar. One should not forget Assad's betrayal of Palestinian in Black September, either.

The notion that Assad's regime is some pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist bulwark has become more and more absurd in the last few years, as Assad's willingness to capitulate to Zionism has become more explicit. Assad's progressive credentials are nil; that the current leadership of the opposition is utterly reactionary does nothing to change that (nor the need for revolutionaries to join the opposition movement and build a proletarian leadership).

manic expression

10th February 2012, 13:28

It's the wrong question. Iraq was "better" than both it's pre-invasion and post invasion phase, back when it was a U.S. client. That fact isn't a good argument for imperialism, in the same way that your question isn't a good argument for backing the Iranian and Syrian states.

Likewise, Iranian intervention(the kind you're praising), did make post-invasion Iraq a lot worse.

Always remember, the Iranian state is prepared to fight to the last Arab, just not elite Persians.
Your logic is false. Imperialism, as a force, has made Iraq worse for the everyday lives of workers. That is the point here. Trying to excuse imperialism from its crimes is resolutely anti-progressive.

Iranian didn't intervene. False equivalency doesn't serve anyone.

The Iranian state is prepared to fight imperialism, something we can't say for your tendency.

manic expression

10th February 2012, 13:46

I'm not so sure about this at all, these various national bourgeois governments have all had to put down many smaller revolts and worker's movements. That Imperialism does so on a larger scale is because of its global scope, not because the exploitation is so much worse or anything like that.
You're not sure about that? Over a million workers murdered in Iraq. Tens of thousands murdered in Afghanistan.

Again, you say you're not concerned with scope...but that's the whole point. If you refuse to deal with scope you're missing the big picture, and instead are engaging in false comparisons out of an admittedly naive viewpoint.

Imperialism in India predated partition. As for the exploitation of Indian land, labor and resources by British Capital without the autonomous power of the local people and supporting factions of local elites to control the population, how is that different from Syrian Kurdistan?Partition in India was a result of British policy, which you asked about. Last I checked, Kurds aren't being forced to grow opium in order to destroy Chinese society and simultaneously make tons of money for foreign businessmen.

Did the Anarchists of Catalonia have a bourgeois economic model? Did they utilize the exploitation of labor or support those who did when they spread their influence?Ah, so it has more to do than pure influence and military presence. Duly noted.

That article implies that Syria was there for Imperialist reasons, not anti-American ones ... i.e that they saw that American influence over Iraq was drawing down and that they had an opportunity to bolster factions there which are more likely to be friendly to their own government....which isn't imperialist in and of itself.

Imperialism takes workers down with it ... but so do bourgeois nationalist regimes like the Syrian or Libyan ones.No, they defend the rights of workers from imperialism.

Again, that you would insinuate, even with the benefit of hindsight, that the workers of Libya are better off today is pure mockery.

Iran is much larger than any country the US has tried to attack since the US went to war with China in Korea, and on top of that it is much better entrenched and has an independent military-industrial complex. As a country it is unable to take on the US directly but it's no pushover, and those bases in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily be turned into a huge liability by Iran (especially considering the fact that the IRGC specializes in asymmetrical warfare). The US could blow much of Iran's infrastructure to smithereens, but fully negating Iran's ability to fight would require deploying a far greater force to the Middle East than what exists there right now. In other words, American Imperial power may not be a paper tiger, but it's not nearly as assured as it looks at first sight. Iraq and Afghanistan both act as proof of the limits of US Imperialism, and Iran is above and beyond those limits. Hence the reason the US is trying its very hardest to prevent an Israeli attack ... the US is hardly exited about the prospect of incurring the costs of a new Imperial venture while it has still not recovered from the massive costs of two earlier ones.No, Iran is no pushover, thank materialism for that. However, Iran isn't going to come out of any such conflict without terrible, terrible sacrifices made by every portion of its society. That you use those assured losses of thousands upon thousands of workers' lives as an insurance policy for your refusal to take an anti-imperialist line is quite sad.

I still don't see where this supposed monolithic Libyan pro-Imperialist opposition is supposed to be.The NTC is a good place to start.

So not all ruling classes are the same ... why can we not let the Syrians make that distinction? Why was Tito immune from British influence when the Syrians by accepting American or British help out of desperation necessarily makes them American or British puppets in the long run?

Thats because the Bashar Assads of Guatemala were on the same side as America.I think being on the same side as American imperialism kind of rules out any serious comparison to Assad. The only reason you're here condemning Assad is because the US decided he's not a nice ruler. Disagree as much as you want, that's the truth.

The MB was driven underground after Hama in the 80s but it still has a role in the Syrian opposition. I'd still like to know why the Egyptians are somehow more immune to sectarianism than the Syrians.What role, exactly? Just because they're there doesn't mean they have much of a say.

The MB in Egypt isn't just a religious organization, it's also strongly nationalist, along with everyone else who was involved in the Revolution. Thus, they see Coptics as fellow Egyptians, and are therefore not only willing but eager to stand together with them. They were in the streets with Christians, and they're in the streets with Christians now. Nothing I've seen or heard contradicts this most important of aspects. Secondly, the MB knows that the Quran teaches tolerance with the people of the book.

Anyways the point is that the Syrian oppositionists are not necessarily any more sectarian than those in Egypt, except insofar as the Syrian government has actively tried to cause divisions between the opposition and Alawite/Christian/Druze minorities.My argument was never that they were sectarians. My argument is that they're far more likely pro-imperialist than they are anti-imperialist.

The power in Libya is in the hands of the militias, which are separate from both NATO and the NTC. This is why the militias have begun fighting each other ... they know that they are the folks with de facto power in Libya and as such they see themselves as in competition with one another.Yeah, sure, the militias who probably don't have a single effective anti-aircraft weapon to their collective name are dictating terms to the combined forces of NATO. Good one. Next you'll be telling us that the South Vietnamese were telling the US Air Force how to tie their shoes.

Again, the US is fine with militias fighting one another...they can influence that state of affairs as easily as a united regime (perhaps even more so). Divide and Conquer is still the favorite.

The IRGC has become a major economic force not only in Iran but in the general area, thanks to its political power and overall wealth. The IRGC, as a body which has a large portion of Iranian financial and economic capital (it is not just an army but has substantial economic assets, as well as the capacity to import things which the Iranian state must do in a clandestine manner), as well as unique military and political power, is the main vehicle of Iranian Imperialism.So the IRGC has money. That's not imperialism.

Iran isn't imperialist because it pushed Iraqi forces back but because it wanted to expand its polity over the Shiite areas of Iraq in the process.And the anarchists wanted to expand their polity over Zaragoza. Hardly worth condemnation.

And state struggle isn't. A dualistic struggle between states is equivalent to arguing for a dualistic struggle within the bourgeoisie ... the elements within the bourgeoisie are fundamentally more similar than different, likewise between states. All modern states uphold and protect the property rights of bourgeoisie within their nations, and do not exist to defend the "sovereignty" of the workers or whatever else.You're right, state struggle isn't, but when it comes to the comparative positioning in relation to capital, it is.

The issue here is that my analysis isn't dualistic. The Syrian state is reactionary in its relation to the Syrian/Kurdish masses, and progressive in its relation to its sovereign resistance to imperialism.

btw Cuba doesn't uphold and protect the property rights of the bourgeoisie. ;)

OK maybe you have I was speaking of a lot of the articles people put up about how the Syrian state is an innocent victim of foreign meddling.OK understood.

manic expression

10th February 2012, 13:52

Well, that's simply not true. Lebanon requested aid because it wanted to muzzle the Palestinian guerrillas. Syrian presence was requested by the most vile anti-Palestinian forces in Lebanon, and met with Zionist approval. The Syrian regime then proceeded to join in the butchery at Tel A-Zaatar. One should not forget Assad's betrayal of Palestinian in Black September, either.

The notion that Assad's regime is some pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist bulwark has become more and more absurd in the last few years, as Assad's willingness to capitulate to Zionism has become more explicit. Assad's progressive credentials are nil; that the current leadership of the opposition is utterly reactionary does nothing to change that (nor the need for revolutionaries to join the opposition movement and build a proletarian leadership).
Well IIRC Syria was supporting some Palestinian groups over others, it wasn't cut-and-dry matter of suppressing Palestinian voices. I'll admit I haven't studied it very much, but my main point is that Syria wasn't there out of some imperialist motive that's being falsely ascribed to the act.

I think that along with Iran, Assad is, after the fall of Libya, the only remaining government in the region that refuses to bend to Zionist demands. That he's been less stout on this question doesn't change the alignment of his government as one that is not beholden to the forces behind Israel.

I agree with you that progressives should go where the workers are, including the opposition. I'm not at all trying to condemn Syrian communists for propagating within those circles...I said as much during the revolts in Iran.

artanis17

10th February 2012, 16:34

A2hVWpRKswY

~Spectre

10th February 2012, 17:28

Your logic is false. Imperialism, as a force, has made Iraq worse for the everyday lives of workers. That is the point here. Trying to excuse imperialism from its crimes is resolutely anti-progressive.

Iranian didn't intervene. False equivalency doesn't serve anyone.

No one excused anything, but it is a timeline - that's if you're interested in facts.

Iraq at one point had one of the highest standards of living in the region, even with the CIA plant Saddam Hussein.

Then came sanctions and invasion. Some equivalent fool to you who roots for American adventurism, could easily say "True or false, was post invasion Iraq better off before Iranian intervention?" and that would be true, though just as meaningless as your disgraceful performance in this thread.

Iran didn't intervene? You're just ignorant. Iran sent over weaponry, explosives, soldiers, and trainers. Do you have any idea what the Mahdi army was?

"No investigation no right to speak"

Sinister Cultural Marxist

10th February 2012, 17:30

You're not sure about that? Over a million workers murdered in Iraq. Tens of thousands murdered in Afghanistan.

Again, you say you're not concerned with scope...but that's the whole point. If you refuse to deal with scope you're missing the big picture, and instead are engaging in false comparisons out of an admittedly naive viewpoint.

Except we know from cases like the Sudan that bourgeois nationalist regimes can commit murders on the same scale as Imperialists. Those bourgeois nationalists killed millions in places like South Sudan and Darfur for the sake of keeping a hold of oil production. If the news is to be believed, what is happening to Homs right now is no different than what happened to Fallujah.

Partition in India was a result of British policy, which you asked about. Last I checked, Kurds aren't being forced to grow opium in order to destroy Chinese society and simultaneously make tons of money for foreign businessmen.
So I'm guessing the Kurds like happily on communes then? Of course not, they are used as wage labor, and they are not quick to let the Kurds go because they live on the Euphrates which is fertile farmland and because the area has oil (the proceeds of which go to the coffers of Syrian State Capital not the local people.)

No, they defend the rights of workers from imperialism.

Again, that you would insinuate, even with the benefit of hindsight, that the workers of Libya are better off today is pure mockery.
It seems simplistic to blame Imperialism alone for destroying the livelihoods of the workers of Libya, it's the utter chaos of the power vacuum. Whether Libya is better off today or not is a moot point because Gaddafi's misrule and refusal to talk to the opposition was the initial cause of that power vacuum. Much of the destruction was caused by Gaddafi's forces trying to control the rebellion, and he allowed no legitimate opposition on the Left or the Right before or during the protest movement, thus once he fell the whole country descended into utter chaos. The material conditions of his regime resulted in him being overthrown the way he was. That Imperialist powers are exploiting that chaos for its own end is just the nature of them being Imperialist powers.

No, Iran is no pushover, thank materialism for that. However, Iran isn't going to come out of any such conflict without terrible, terrible sacrifices made by every portion of its society. That you use those assured losses of thousands upon thousands of workers' lives as an insurance policy for your refusal to take an anti-imperialist line is quite sad.
Um I am taking an "Anti-Imperialist" line, I oppose American and Iranian Imperialism and if the US invaded Iran I would be protesting against such a conflict. So I don't know what you mean by the fact that I am using them as an "insurance policy". All I am saying is that Iran is relatively strong and an independent regional power unlike Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan.

The NTC is a good place to start.
Again, the NTC doesn't even control Benghazi, let alone the whole country. Tripoli is run by a dozen different militias right now.

I think being on the same side as American imperialism kind of rules out any serious comparison to Assad. The only reason you're here condemning Assad is because the US decided he's not a nice ruler. Disagree as much as you want, that's the truth.
What does the US have to do with anything? The reason I'm condemning Assad is because I condemn rulers who need to use tanks to kill unarmed people to preserve their own power.

What is the qualitative difference between the puppets in Guatemala and the national bourgeoisie of Syria? In both cases the workers end up equally exploited if they work and equally dead if they revolt. The only difference is that in the case of a nationalist bourgeoisie, they are taking the whole surplus value of exploited labor, whereas puppets surely let the Imperialists keep a portion of it in return for their support.

What role, exactly? Just because they're there doesn't mean they have much of a say.

The MB in Egypt isn't just a religious organization, it's also strongly nationalist, along with everyone else who was involved in the Revolution. Thus, they see Coptics as fellow Egyptians, and are therefore not only willing but eager to stand together with them. They were in the streets with Christians, and they're in the streets with Christians now. Nothing I've seen or heard contradicts this most important of aspects. Secondly, the MB knows that the Quran teaches tolerance with the people of the book.

My argument was never that they were sectarians. My argument is that they're far more likely pro-imperialist than they are anti-imperialist.
This is not a dig at Islam or whatever, but the Quran teaches "tolerance" for people of the book, but not necessarily equal rights ... as for Imperialism, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt has more or less signed up with a liberal economic program for now. Even if they are so lovely and tolerant (politicians are good at hiding their intentions) there's no reason to think that they would not ally with Imperialists any more than the Syrian opposition would in the long run.

Yeah, sure, the militias who probably don't have a single effective anti-aircraft weapon to their collective name are dictating terms to the combined forces of NATO. Good one. Next you'll be telling us that the South Vietnamese were telling the US Air Force how to tie their shoes.

Again, the US is fine with militias fighting one another...they can influence that state of affairs as easily as a united regime (perhaps even more so). Divide and Conquer is still the favorite.
Is there even a US aircraft carrier off of Libya still? You don't need effective AA weapons. Gaddafi's military had terrible air defenses yet NATO airpower alone was unable to "dictate policy" to them ... this was despite the fact that Gaddafi's army was simultaneously battling the insurgency and the fact that NATO air forces were making continuous sorties, unlike now. Air power definitely sped up the fall of his regime quite a bit, but it alone would not have been able to topple his government or force it to accept demands. Your example of South Vietnam is a bad one because there was a single, united body of established local oligarchs who sought an alliance with the US to fulfill their own interests.

This isn't to say NATO doesn't have undue influence over the new situation in Libya, but they are hardly dictating policy. They are merely one of a group of competing power brokers trying to make sure that the next Libyan government is the best for them.

So the IRGC has money. That's not imperialism.
They have Capital ... they are the main owner of means of production in Iran and then invest that money within their country and abroad for the sake of maintaining the current Iranian government and growing the material interests of Iran's ruling classes.

Iran's relationship to Iranian Kurds is clearly Imperialistic. The State there is a Shia fundamentalist organization for Farsi-speaking Persians which uses its state power to keep groups like that down so that the Iranian state can continue to exploit the labor and resources of their homelands. The IRGC and Iranian security forces are used to violently repress Kurdish calls which the State sees as risking their control over that part of the country.

The issue here is that my analysis isn't dualistic. The Syrian state is reactionary in its relation to the Syrian/Kurdish masses, and progressive in its relation to its sovereign resistance to imperialism.
Well in that case the problem is that you're taking the agency in these protests out of the hands of the Syrian people and assuming that Imperialist interests will necessarily be served if the State falls.

btw Cuba doesn't uphold and protect the property rights of the bourgeoisie. ;)
Well, I would certainly consider Cuba to be a much better model than Syria, and Fidel Castro to be a more genuinely proletarian leader than Assad.

Well IIRC Syria was supporting some Palestinian groups over others, it wasn't cut-and-dry matter of suppressing Palestinian voices. I'll admit I haven't studied it very much, but my main point is that Syria wasn't there out of some imperialist motive that's being falsely ascribed to the act.

I think that along with Iran, Assad is, after the fall of Libya, the only remaining government in the region that refuses to bend to Zionist demands. That he's been less stout on this question doesn't change the alignment of his government as one that is not beholden to the forces behind Israel.Just because they are anti-Zionist, it does not mean that their motives for partaking in anti-Zionist activities are not the selfish interests of their own States. Germany was one of the main voices against British Imperialism, but they were hardly a better alternative. Aside from the massacres of Palestinian groups, do you think all Lebanese people want the Syrian-backed groups like Hezbollah to have a monopoly on power there? Did the Syrians really occupy Lebanon out of good-will? Were they attacking Palestinian and Leftist groups to aid in the struggle of workers around the world? Of course not ... they were doing so for strategic reasons. I'm no expert on the Lebanese civil war either, but from what I know of it, Syria was intervening out of Imperialist interests and not the interests of the Lebanese people. Unlike the anarchists of Catalonia, Syria's goal was not building a single massive commune across all of the country but preserving the power of their distinct state

~Spectre

10th February 2012, 17:33

Sure it could. In fact it could probably do it easier right now than at any other time

Syria could disobey the Russian state, "easier right now than at any other time"?

Are you fucking drunk?

Yehuda Stern

10th February 2012, 20:17

First of all, it is good to hear that your position isn't one of outright support for Assad - I kind of got that impression at first, and I'm glad to find myself to have been wrong. Still, I think you have an overly positive view of the Syrian regime.

Assad did much worse than support some Palestinian groups over others (indeed, it is neither common nor desirable for anyone to support all Palestinian groups). Hafiz al-Assad tried to force his policies on Palestinian groups, and when he failed, that led him to make dirty deals with Israel (directly or indirectly through the reactionary Maronite groups in Lebanon). Syria's motive wasn't imperialistic inasmuch as Syria isn't an imperialist country, but its policies certainly benefited Zionist, and hence US, imperialism.

Syria is indeed less subservient to Israel than other Arab countries. That has a lot to do with public pressure in regards to the Golan, and as I'm sure you realize, very little to do with principles. Assad knows that cutting a deal with Israel that doesn't include negotiations over the Golan is political suicide, which would put him in an even worse position than his current one. He has signaled over and over that given negotiations on the Golan, he would be more than happy to sign a peace accord with Israel. (It should be said that most opposition leaders, i.e. Burhan Ghalyun, are just as bad in this respect.)

manic expression

11th February 2012, 00:31

Syria could disobey the Russian state, "easier right now than at any other time"?
I think this is arguable. If Syria were to do a public mea culpa and appeal to US support, promising to back US policy from here-on-in...I don't see any reason to think it would be rejected by US imperialism, which would mean Russian influence would be on the outs.

Thankfully, this is very, very unlikely to happen.

Are you fucking drunk?
No comment. :cool:

manic expression

11th February 2012, 00:44

~Spectre

11th February 2012, 00:53

I think this is arguable. If Syria were to do a public mea culpa and appeal to US support, promising to back US policy from here-on-in...I don't see any reason to think it would be rejected by US imperialism

Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, etc.

manic expression

11th February 2012, 00:57

Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, etc.
That is a list of four countries that have very little to do with the specific example given.

Yehuda Stern

11th February 2012, 01:25

A good way to keep up with the current situation, and learn some of the history too, is through As'ad AbuKhalil's blog, the Angry Arab News Service. I disagree with some of his views (see here (http://www.the-isleague.com/abu-khalil-english.php)), but on the whole, he's very knowledgeable and more often than not is spot on in his analysis. One should be cautious, though, since as he admits himself, he doesn't filter too much (though on Syria he is more careful, and usually discounts both regime and opposition claims given that both sides have been proven to be lying quite consistently).

The ISL has, unfortunately, yet to issue an official statement on Syria, though we've had many discussions on it amongst ourselves and with our international co-thinkers. I hope I will not do it our position a disservice. To be concise: we supported the uprising when it started, and still support the overthrow of the Syrian regime, and side with the protestors in general. However, we are completely opposed to the reactionary, pro-Saudi and pro-Western leadership of the opposition, and believe proletarian revolutionaries in Syria must fight for working class leadership of the struggle.

This may sound somewhat abstract: unfortunately, not having comrades in Syria, this is as concrete as we can get. It means, in general, joining the opposition movement in common actions, but not joining any of its organizations, and propagandizing for Marxist ideas within the movement.

Sir Comradical

11th February 2012, 09:35

Sir Comradical

11th February 2012, 09:54

There are only a few rare cases when imperialism is attacked first, and even then it's largely because imperialism is somewhere it has no right to be. Remember the Maine!

And even when imperialism is attacked first, we remember Lenin.

"For example if tomorrow Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be ''just'', ''defensive'' wars, irrespective of who attacked first, and every socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressive, slaveowning, predatory ''great'' powers."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s+w/ch01.htm

Yehuda Stern

11th February 2012, 12:45

Sir Comradical

11th February 2012, 13:59

I would comment that being abstract tops supporting the forces of reaction, whether those of the regime or those of the opposition. Joining the mass movement against Assad has nothing to do with supporting the reactionary criminals of the Free Syrian Army, who, should they ever come to power, will erect a regime at least as terrible as the current one.

Obviously there were genuine working class grievances against the Assad regime but those voices have been dwarfed by the FSA's political agenda. Whether we like it or not, it is now between the FSA and the Syrian Government.

Of course there is no proletarian party in Syria. It must be created. It will not be created if revolutionaries, instead of joining in with the masses, support their massacre by Assad's forces. On the contrary, that will only strengthen the reactionaries.

Your position means that you'd only begin calling for the defense of Syria after NATO actually invades. But what's the political difference between imperialist proxies like the FSA and actual imperialist troops, when both are simply two different means to the same end? Both these forces (FSA & NATO) would effectively eliminate a regime that stands in the way of the US & Israel's domination over the region and for that reason we should treat the FSA no differently than an imperialist army. Had the US chosen to fund a proxy army to fight Saddam instead of invading Iraq would you refuse to take sides?

What really compromises Iran's ability to defend itself from imperialism is the conduct of the Iranian regime, which vacillates on the question of anti-imperialism and, through its oppressive actions, alienates the masses at home and abroad. The only class that can consistently carry through the anti-imperialist struggle is the working class. The strategy of allying with various "anti-imperialist" bourgeois regimes is what doomed CPs all over the world for the past few decades to irrelevance (at best).

So Iran is a victim of imperialism because the regime is reactionary? It also sounds like you're saying that Iran is unable to defend itself from imperialism because they're not consistently anti-imperialist? Is that what you meant?

Iran is reviled by the American imperialists because it's an oil rich country that charts a somewhat independent path. For this reason Iran is anti-imperialist regardless of how reactionary the regime is. Of course if Iran was a workers' state the imperialists would revile it even more.

Yehuda Stern

12th February 2012, 11:09

I do not see at all why proletarian revolutionaries have to accept that the fight is "between the FSA and the Syrian government". That position seems very beneficial for those two reactionary forces, but not for anyone else. The fact is that, besides the FSA, there is still a mass struggle against Assad. Revolutionaries must find the way to participate in it and build a working class leadership of it.

The FSA is hardly an "imperialist proxy". It is pro-imperialist and receives some support from the imperialists, but it is not actually controlled by the imperialists. This difference is important. The fact is that the imperialists do not want the Ba'ath regime overthrown because they realize that Assad does not stand in the way of US and Israeli domination of the region, but on the contrary, wants to strike a deal with those countries. They merely want to force the regime into a position in which it has less bargaining power. They may demand that Assad be ditched, but they know that the current regime is stable and perfectly willing of supplying their needs under the correct conditions. In this context, since you mentioned proxies, one should note that even back in the Bush days, the Syrian regime was more than happy to be the US's proxy torturer (e.g., the Maher Arar case).

I never said that imperialism targets Iran because it is reactionary. I said that the reactionary nature of the regime compromises Iran's ability to defend itself from imperialism. As for your last claim, the logic is faulty through and through: just because the American imperialists "revile" the Iranian regime, it must be anti-imperialist? But it collaborates happily with the Russian imperialists most of the time, and has in the past collaborated with Western imperialism as well (France's support for Khomeini, Iran-Contra Affair, etc.). Certainly Iran must be defended against imperialist aggression, but the current regime is least qualified to do so!

freepalestine

12th February 2012, 15:17

Foolishly Ignoring the Arab League Report on Syria
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/foolishly-ignoring-arab-league-report-syria

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/assad-reforming-party-and-state

Yehuda Stern

12th February 2012, 16:59

I never said that imperialism targets Iran because it is reactionary... As for your last claim, the logic is faulty through and through: just because the American imperialists "revile" the Iranian regime, it must be anti-imperialist?

I also note that this faulty logic is merely the flip-side of the faulty logic which you incorrectly attributed to me.

Thirsty Crow

12th February 2012, 18:25

Straight up true or false, the workers of Iraq are worse off because of the imperialist invasion.Do you have any idea how hard it is to make such judgements when you're not well acquainted by the facts on the ground?
If you were to pose the question differently, I'd say that it's absolutely false that Iraqi workers are better off when Saddam's regime is no longer there. But this is just asking other people to irresponsibly speculate, but okay, it actually seems to me that workers are indeed worse off, though I wouldn't put my hand into fire for that judgement since I don't know enough. No matter whether they're worse off or not, the present regime is as much an enemy to workers' emancipation as Hussein's was.
But of course, this alters nothing when it comes to the initial, basic position of resolute and unconditional opposition to imperialist war.

It is not a delusion, much less a dangerous one, to say "true" to the above statement. In fact, it is a dangerous delusion to think that the struggle against imperialism has no relevance to the lives and interests of the masses. It was that delusion that led leftists to refuse support to the anti-imperialists in Libya, and the workers of Libya payed the price.I didn't claim otherwise (with regard to delusions), though I cannot agree that Gaddafi's regime represented "anti-imperialism" of any kind, which again does not mean I supported, or would, the so called rebels.

However, if that be the case, then whom do you support? Remember, we cannot imagine tendencies where they do not exist, we must grapple with things as they are. If there isn't a working-class movement in Syria, then the only option left for all progressives is to maintain the opposition to imperialism that you have so well expressed.This is the problem, this right here.
You seem to base your politics around the issue of whom to support, as if that's the entirety of what communists, far away from conflict, should do, to engage in grand verbal gestures of denouncing and supporting.
I can't agree with this, and this is not the (sole) role of communist propaganda/analysis. As I've stated, while clearly demarcating the political forces and economic at work within a conflict, communists should also clearly demonstrate the root causes and elaborate on the way in which the conflict reflects on the basic principles of revolutionary politics. It's more a matter of clarification than agitation since it would be foolish to expect that any kind of written agitation campaign, for instance, carried out in France or USA might produce real effects on the course of events in Syria.
Now returning to the issue at hand, I agree that, in the absence of a consolidated, politically organized working class movement, there is the issue of "foreign" intervention to address and criticize mercilessly, though not on grounds of the phatasmic "national independence" or any such foolishness. Here, as far as I'm concerned, it's also important to recognize the character and function of the Assad regime, and point out its class character. In other words, there's no need, no pressing concern to get all nervous to support someone, 'cause as in the case of Lybia, there might be no organized political force to support (note that I'm not claiming anything with regard to Syria because I'm informing myself and hadn't yet formed a definite opinion on the opposition to the established regime), and consequently no support should be given.

You bring up a valid point about what the significance is, but in the end this is all about opposing that which should be opposed and lending support along the same lines. I think it matters because what you stand for and against defines you.Yes, I agree with that, but I think it's very important to keep in mind that lending support is ultimately, and most importantly, tied to the opposition to world capitalism, to capital as the dominant relation of production, which means that not only the dominant capitalist states should be opposed, but also every existing state, no matter its form (for instance, I don't think that ideology and nationalizations represent something over which you could make a meaningful distinction; anti-imperialism being the ideological cover for the interests of "indigenous" borugeoisie and nationalizations being the economic and political measures aimed at preserving capital in this historical period).

...as just one example ANSWER has gotten a lot of attention from American workers and progressives because it was one of the first organizations to strongly oppose the invasion of Afghanistan back in 2001; it was a very small club back then that opposed that war, but now it's grown and people have worked with communists as a result.I don't know much about answer, but as I've stated, in no way imaginable could communists support military operations conducted by capitalist states or blocs, no matter the "humanitarian" pretensions (which are after all just an ideological cover).

I think that working-class participation and working-class organization are two different things, and that the former can contribute to reactionary causes.I tihnk that the latter can also produce such effects.

I only disagree in that in the event that there is a rightist opposition, I wouldn't outwardly condemn the Syrian state because that would be tantamount to adding to imperialist propaganda (usually whenever you voice a negative opinion about a government the US doesn't like, it's taken as support for imperialist policy...I've seen the same sort of thing play out in other NATO countries as well, although perhaps it's different elsewhere).
Oh c'mon now, I think this is not right and you know it. Would it also be the case that capitalist propaganda would be added to when communists make points similar to those of the factions of the ruling class who realize the destructiveness of the policies of austerity, meaning that communists should remain silent about global austerity?
This can in no way be interpreted as tantamount to adding to imperialist propaganda when the opposition to imperialism is clearly stated. Clarity, alongside continuous ideological intervention, can ensure that such confusion and manipulation fall short.
In any case, I think that your position is also flawed in that it is actually imperialist propaganda which dictates what position communists put forward, implying a serious lack of political independence.