Russian "Anti-Terror" Troops Arrive in Syria

[RedZero]

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-anti-terror-troops-arrive-syria-164035966--abc-news.html

A Russian military unit has arrived in Syria, according to Russian news reports, a development that a United Nations Security Council source told ABC News was "a bomb" certain to have serious repercussions.

Russia, one of President Bashar al-Assad's strongest allies despite international condemnation of the government's violent crackdown on the country's uprising, has repeatedly blocked the United Nations Security Council's attempts to halt the violence, accusing the U.S. and its allies of trying to start another war.

Now the Russian Black Sea fleet's Iman tanker has arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea with an anti-terror squad from the Russian Marines aboard according to the Interfax news agency. The Assad government has insisted it is fighting a terrorist insurgency.

The Iman replaced another Russian ship "which had been sent to Syria for demonstrating (sic) the Russian presence in the turbulent region and possible evaluation of Russian citizens," the Black Sea Fleet told Interfax.

RIA Novosti, a news outlet with strong ties to the Kremlin, trumpeted the news in a banner headline that appeared only on its Arabic language website. The Russian embassy to the US and to the UN had no comment, saying they have "no particular information on" the arrival of a Russian anti-terrorism squad to Syria.

Moscow has long enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Assad regime, to which it sells billions of dollars of weapons. In return Russia has maintained a Navy base at Tartus, which gives it access to the Mediterranean.

Last week Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia had no plans to send troops to Syria.

"As for the question whether I consider it necessary to confront the United States in Syria and ensure our military presence there… in order to take part in military actions -- no. I believe this would be against Russia's national interests," Lavrov told lawmakers, according to RIA Novosti.

Russia's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov denied reports that Russian special forces were operating inside Syria. He did say, however, that there are Russian military and technical advisors in the country.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said the U.S. government had not heard of the reports of Russian troops in Syria and declined to comment.

[Omsk]

Russia=USA.

Although the US is far more violent,currently.(And powerful)

[Arlekino]

No Russian warships near Syria – Russian military
Russia’s Defense Ministry has denied media reports that Russian warships have been deployed in Syria. “There are no warships on a mission near Syria’s coastline,” a ministry spokesperson told RIA-Novosti. However, he added that the Russian tanker Iman has been in the Syrian port of Tartous for the past 10 days. The vessel serves as a backup for Russian warships providing security in the Strait of Aden, and its crew consists of civilians and their guards. Earlier there had been reports that a Russian anti-terror squad had arrived in Syria on board the Iman.

From RT website.

[sithsaber]

Proxy warrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Orlov]

Say hello the new Cold War. Russia fully should take all measures though to ensure that the Al-Assad regime is not invaded and that the West isn't allowed to trample on Syria as it was with Libya due to the unwillingness of China and Russia to take all measures against the NATO bombing campaign.

But with the recent Russian election, the Western attempts to invade Iran and secure itself a oil rich base for exporting capital this isn't very surprising at all. The East should remain the East though and the national bourgeois are preferable to the foreign bourgeois represented by the United States and Europe.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Say hello the new Cold War. Russia fully should take all measures though to ensure that the Al-Assad regime is not invaded and that the West isn't allowed to trample on Syria as it was with Libya due to the unwillingness of China and Russia to take all measures against the NATO bombing campaign.

But with the recent Russian election, the Western attempts to invade Iran and secure itself a oil rich base for exporting capital this isn't very surprising at all. The East should remain the East though and the national bourgeois are preferable to the foreign bourgeois represented by the United States and Europe.

Why is that?

[Orlov]

Why is that?
US and NATO imperialism is a festering disease that if not treated with the correct antibiotics will expand itself like any other viral/bacterial infection.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

US and NATO imperialism is a festering disease that if not treated with the correct antibiotics will expand itself like any other viral/bacterial infection.

And the 'correct antibiotics' are the Syrian and Russian ruling class?

[Orlov]

And the 'correct antibiotics' are the Syrian and Russian ruling class?
At the moment communist forces should be building a united front of the national bourgeois and all other forces who are against US led imperialism in the region. They should be building this united front in order to inevitably become the largest force to challenge US led imperialism and seize control of the state. Until then the national bourgeois remains an important ally against US imperialism.

[svenne]

Marxism-leninism at its worst: "let's exchange western capitalism for eastern muslim fundamentalism/another (but eastern, also cool) form of right wing crap!". I'm not sure even Stalin would think that was a good idea...

[Susurrus]

Oh for heaven's sake, are you really using domino theory to support authoritarian, capitalist regimes, and then calling it "anti-imperialism"? And I suppose the US supporting South Vietnam was defending democracy...

[Orlov]

Oh for heaven's sake, are you really using domino theory to support authoritarian, capitalist regimes, and then calling it "anti-imperialism"? And I suppose the US supporting South Vietnam was defending democracy...
It is anti-imperialism, as if these regimes do not exist the US will be allowed to gain ground in the Middle East by installing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. In South Vietnam the US was defending their own imperialist interests by putting the South Vietnamese government in power against the revolutionary Vietnamese government.

Marxism-leninism at its worst: "let's exchange western capitalism for eastern muslim fundamentalism/another (but eastern, also cool) form of right wing crap!". I'm not sure even Stalin would think that was a good idea...
The only Muslim fundamentalist group seeking to gain power is the Muslim Brotherhood supported by the United States and NATO. Nor is this 'cool', it's simply supporting forces which are willing to take a stand against US imperialism in the region and building a communist led united front party that will be able to seize control of the state and get rid of the national bourgeois when then they're no longer needed. Speaking of which Anarchism is laughable, they would rather 'not take a side' and remain useless and allow imperialism to ravage another country. What a joke, no wonder they've never gotten anywhere! A workers state is what is needed and the only way this will exist is if the US led imperialist forces in the country are thrown out first and the state is seized afterward.

[Veovis]

It is anti-imperialism, as if these regimes do not exist the US will be allowed to gain ground in the Middle East by installing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. In South Vietnam the US was defending their own imperialist interests by putting the South Vietnamese government in power against the revolutionary Vietnamese government.

So... The USA is the only country capable of imperialism. Gotcha.

[Orlov]

So... The USA is the only country capable of imperialism. Gotcha.
US imperialism is the ultimate stage of imperialism.

[Susurrus]

It is anti-imperialism, as if these regimes do not exist the US will be allowed to gain ground in the Middle East by installing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. In South Vietnam the US was defending their own imperialist interests by putting the South Vietnamese government in power against the revolutionary Vietnamese government.

As opposed to Russia propping up their imperialist interests? Imperialism is possible by more than one world power. Not to mention the fact that this regime is conducting a war against its own people at this point.

[Orlov]

As opposed to Russia propping up their imperialist interests? Imperialism is possible by more than one world power. Not to mention the fact that this regime is conducting a war against its own people at this point.
Russia is simply helping to defend the rightful government of Syria against the Muslim Brotherhood which is at this point a US led proxy force. Russia knows that it is best to defend the legitimate government of Syria as opposed to promoting a US installed one led by terrorists in the Muslim Brotherhood who are supported by the Zionist entity and the United States. War against it's own people? That's laughable, the people that are being killed aren't even Syrian, they're traitors to Syria who took up arms in support of the United States. Imperialists are rats and they should be exterminated like they should have in Libya.

[Grenzer]

It is anti-imperialism, as if these regimes do not exist the US will be allowed to gain ground in the Middle East by installing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. In South Vietnam the US was defending their own imperialist interests by putting the South Vietnamese government in power against the revolutionary Vietnamese government.

This isn't anti-imperialism. You're explicitly supporting Iranian, Chinese, and Russian imperialism. You seem to think that there are "gradients of imperialism" and that it's better to support a "lesser imperialism." This is pure nonsense. Imperialism is a fundamental cornerstone of the capitalist system, one which I remind you that you are explicitly supporting. I don't see how China replacing the United States as the dominant imperialist power is going to bring about much of an improvement or further the aim of toppling capitalism.

The 20th century doctrine of "Anti-Imperialism" is, in fact, pro-imperialism and anti-western chauvinism in practice, as you've demonstrated here. There is no point being opposed to imperialism if you are not willing to oppose it consistently and equally wherever it exists, which you've shown you are not willing to do.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Russia is simply helping to defend the rightful government of Syria against the Muslim Brotherhood which is at this point a US led proxy force. Russia knows that it is best to defend the legitimate government of Syria as opposed to promoting a US installed one led by terrorists in the Muslim Brotherhood who are supported by the Zionist entity and the United States. War against it's own people? That's laughable, the people that are being killed aren't even Syrian, they're traitors to Syria who took up arms in support of the United States. Imperialists are rats and they should be exterminated like they should have in Libya.

Just for future reference, which characteristics does an authoritarian capitalist government need to possess in order to gain the qualifiers "rightful" and "legitimate" from dedicated Marxist-Leninists like yourself?

[bcbm]

A workers state is what is needed and the only way this will exist is if the US led imperialist forces in the country are thrown out first and the state is seized afterward.

pretty sure you'll get a state run by bashar and the baath party not a workers state

[Per Levy]

At the moment communist forces should be building a united front of the national bourgeois and all other forces who are against US led imperialism in the region. They should be building this united front in order to inevitably become the largest force to challenge US led imperialism and seize control of the state. Until then the national bourgeois remains an important ally against US imperialism.

so you call for classcolaboration, for the support of a state where communists are repressed, where working class organizations in general are repressed and you support imperialism as long as it is no us/eu imperialism. sure you want to call yourself a communist?


Russia is simply helping to defend the rightful government of Syria

because for communists there are "legitimate" bourgeois gouvernments, sure.

[bcbm]

it is okay to suppress/kill workers and communists if you do it in the name of anti-imperialism

[Os Cangaceiros]

What a joke, no wonder they've never gotten anywhere!

Yes, as opposed to how far anti-imperialist doctrine has gotten! Just look at Somalia, for example! The anti-imp's boy Siad, who rose to power in an "enlightened" take over by ostensibly anti-imperialist military figures, was engaged in weapon sales with the USA before the country sank into two decades of cluster-fuckery! :cool: And to think that Somalia is only a bit worse off than other former "anti-imperalist" states; to say that the strength of the old Cold War formulation is in ruins would be to dramatically overstate it's structural integrity.

[Susurrus]

Russia is simply helping to defend the rightful government of Syria against the Muslim Brotherhood which is at this point a US led proxy force. Russia knows that it is best to defend the legitimate government of Syria as opposed to promoting a US installed one led by terrorists in the Muslim Brotherhood who are supported by the Zionist entity and the United States. War against it's own people? That's laughable, the people that are being killed aren't even Syrian, they're traitors to Syria who took up arms in support of the United States. Imperialists are rats and they should be exterminated like they should have in Libya.

So what, if something's native and not US backed, it's alright? So Nazi Germany would've been a-ok, since it was merely combating the US imperialism post-WWI? Heck, let's just back Kerensky, and even the Tsar while we're at it, and support the Allies defending the rightful government of Russia against the German and Jewish backed Red hordes, who are traitors to Russia. In fact, let's just feel free to kill anyone who protests against their government anywhere but the US, since they're obviously imperialists and must be exterminated.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It is anti-imperialism, as if these regimes do not exist the US will be allowed to gain ground in the Middle East by installing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. In South Vietnam the US was defending their own imperialist interests by putting the South Vietnamese government in power against the revolutionary Vietnamese government.


Russia and Iran are defending their Imperialist interests by propping up the Syrian regime.



The only Muslim fundamentalist group seeking to gain power is the Muslim Brotherhood supported by the United States and NATO. Nor is this 'cool', it's simply supporting forces which are willing to take a stand against US imperialism in the region and building a communist led united front party that will be able to seize control of the state and get rid of the national bourgeois when then they're no longer needed. Speaking of which Anarchism is laughable, they would rather 'not take a side' and remain useless and allow imperialism to ravage another country. What a joke, no wonder they've never gotten anywhere! A workers state is what is needed and the only way this will exist is if the US led imperialist forces in the country are thrown out first and the state is seized afterward.The national bourgeois is never needed, and all national bourgeois seek to become international (i.e Imperialist bourgeois) because they all seek to make their profit margins maximal.

The Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt and liberal Islamists won in Tunisia, I guess you support Mubarak and Ben Ali?


US imperialism is the ultimate stage of imperialism.

No, the US is the most powerful Imperial power, it is not the "ultimate stage of Imperialism." Your line of thinking would have led one to support Kaiser Wilhelm and the Ottoman Sultan against the British Empire.


Russia is simply helping to defend the rightful government of Syria against the Muslim Brotherhood which is at this point a US led proxy force. Russia knows that it is best to defend the legitimate government of Syria as opposed to promoting a US installed one led by terrorists in the Muslim Brotherhood who are supported by the Zionist entity and the United States.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a Zionist proxy? Have you ever heard of Hamas?


War against it's own people? That's laughable, the people that are being killed aren't even Syrian, they're traitors to Syria who took up arms in support of the United States. Imperialists are rats and they should be exterminated like they should have in Libya.You are seriously fucked up. Protesting against your government does NOT make you an "Imperialist rat" or a traitor and does not give the government a license to kill you. You are a stereotypical Stalinist monster who thinks that mass-murder of innocent people is justified by some perverse Manichean dualism. On the contrary, the State is the true traitor to its own people when it massacres the citizens it claims to represent for the sake of preserving their own political power, a people cannot be "traitors" to their state by no longer seeing their government as legitimate. This is the same sociopathic reasoning that the Turks used to justify their massacres of Armenians.

You are nothing but a petty nationalist, and a genocidal one at that, and not a communist.

[Guy Incognito]

US imperialism is the ultimate stage of imperialism.

Bwa-hahahahahaha. Somebody get this motherfucker a map of the old British Empire.

[svenne]

The only Muslim fundamentalist group seeking to gain power is the Muslim Brotherhood supported by the United States and NATO. Nor is this 'cool', it's simply supporting forces which are willing to take a stand against US imperialism in the region and building a communist led united front party that will be able to seize control of the state and get rid of the national bourgeois when then they're no longer needed. Speaking of which Anarchism is laughable, they would rather 'not take a side' and remain useless and allow imperialism to ravage another country. What a joke, no wonder they've never gotten anywhere! A workers state is what is needed and the only way this will exist is if the US led imperialist forces in the country are thrown out first and the state is seized afterward.

As a lot of people already have written: you want to exchange one form of imperialism for another. You're not even a leninist anymore! As you hopefully know, Lenin wrote of imperialism as something SEVERAL states practiced, and while i disagree with Lenin on the subject of imperialism, you also seems to do that. You're not anti-imperialist, you're pro-russian-imperialist. Speaking of which, trotskyite-hoxhaist-crusthipsterism is laughable, they would rather 'not take a side' and remain useless and allow russian imperialism to ravage another country. (see what i did there? I'm no anarchist. Go figure). You, however, will propably be banned soon anyway. Have fun with the nazis and the religious fundamentalists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Say hello the new Cold War. Russia fully should take all measures though to ensure that the Al-Assad regime is not invaded and that the West isn't allowed to trample on Syria as it was with Libya due to the unwillingness of China and Russia to take all measures against the NATO bombing campaign.

But with the recent Russian election, the Western attempts to invade Iran and secure itself a oil rich base for exporting capital this isn't very surprising at all. The East should remain the East though and the national bourgeois are preferable to the foreign bourgeois represented by the United States and Europe.
This is probably the most blatant and honest demonstration of what actually the ideology of anti-imperialism and Marxism-Leninism amount to in practice. Support for one imperialist state over others, as well as support for the supposedly progressive national bourgeoisie.
But the East (is that some kind of a metaphysical entity floating in the aiiry realm of Ideas?) should remain the East, really? I'd think that even a kind of a lip service would be paid to proletarian internationalism, but it seems that I'm mistaken.

[robbo203]

This isn't anti-imperialism. You're explicitly supporting Iranian, Chinese, and Russian imperialism. You seem to think that there are "gradients of imperialism" and that it's better to support a "lesser imperialism." This is pure nonsense. Imperialism is a fundamental cornerstone of the capitalist system, one which I remind you that you are explicitly supporting. I don't see how China replacing the United States as the dominant imperialist power is going to bring about much of an improvement or further the aim of toppling capitalism.

The 20th century doctrine of "Anti-Imperialism" is, in fact, pro-imperialism and anti-western chauvinism in practice, as you've demonstrated here. There is no point being opposed to imperialism if you are not willing to oppose it consistently and equally wherever it exists, which you've shown you are not willing to do.

Well said!. So called "anti-imperialism" all too often aligns itself with some other imperialist power than the usual suspects - like the US - for so called pragmatic reasons but declines to come clean about this. This means that, in practice, anti imperialism is typically pro-nationalist, gives credence to that very bourgeois construct called the "nation state" and, as such, obscures the divergent class interests that are to be found in every so called nation-state on the face of the earth.

To hell with so called "anti imperialism"! To hell with the nationalistic claptrap that goes with it! Actually, all nations are latently or manifestly imperialistic - even the little ones - since all nations are capitalist and the dynamic of capital is nothing if not expansionist

The problem is not imperialism but capitalism and our vociferous "anti imperialists" do their utmost to distract attention from this simple but undeniable fact

[453534]

first of all, abc news is not a reliable news source. second, good for Russia to send in the troops. third. the Syrian govt is not "killing its own people". the killers are mercenaries and terorists sent by the u.s and nato. many of whom are training in turkey now under the leadership of belhaj the butcher, the same belhaj who butchered Libya. the same belhaj that the cia broke out of prison

[The Intransigent Faction]

first of all, abc news is not a reliable news source. second, good for Russia to send in the troops. third. the Syrian govt is not "killing its own people". the killers are mercenaries and terorists sent by the u.s and nato. many of whom are training in turkey now under the leadership of belhaj the butcher, the same belhaj who butchered Libya. the same belhaj that the cia broke out of prison

Yeah, all those children that Syrian security forces have slaughtered in the streets are NATO mercenaries. Gimme a fuckin' break.

Question: Does the fact that a bourgeois news source reports something make it false by default?

[Homo Songun]

Bwa-hahahahahaha. Somebody get this motherfucker a map of the old British Empire.

In reality, the acquisition and maintenance of formal territorial holdings has been at least one or two generations removed from the cutting edge of capitalist expansion for some time now. The British ruling class has certainly suffered inefficiencies in their accumulation process as a result of it, with the difference traditionally being only partially made up for in the spectacular brutality of their methods. Their current status as loyal poodles of the American ruling class can attest to this.

[Omsk]

This is probably the most blatant and honest demonstration of what actually the ideology of anti-imperialism and Marxism-Leninism amount to in practice.


Menocchio you are generalizing,and being quite demagogic.Don't turn every discussion to some unreasonable: "His stance is automatically the stance of every other '_____'(Insert tendency) person. You people should stop behaving like that.

+ I don't remember so much angry responses when some 'leftists' where hoping for a NATO intervention,and a positive 'rebel' victory.You all talked about the 'good chances' in Libya,and how the 'progressive' elements (Socialists/communists) will 'find a way to get to the masses' - to me,it looks like Libya was a disaster,and it proves how 'Marxist' are some of you.

[Rafiq]

So what, if something's native and not US backed, it's alright? So Nazi Germany would've been a-ok, since it was merely combating the US imperialism post-WWI? Heck, let's just back Kerensky, and even the Tsar while we're at it, and support the Allies defending the rightful government of Russia against the German and Jewish backed Red hordes, who are traitors to Russia. In fact, let's just feel free to kill anyone who protests against their government anywhere but the US, since they're obviously imperialists and must be exterminated.

Not to take sides, but the Muslim Brotherhood isn't comparable to the Bolsheviks and "red hoards" in any way at all.

[Thirsty Crow]

Menocchio you are generalizing,and being quite demagogic.Don't turn every discussion to some unreasonable: "His stance is automatically the stance of every other '_____'(Insert tendency) person. You people should stop behaving like that.Marxists-Leninists generally uphold Lenin's theory of imperialism, no? And on a more of a tangential line, you do support the so called right of nations to self-determination, no?
Well, then my position holds, and it's just that out of some valid reasons certain individuals and organizations don't draw all of the conclusions from such a notion of imperialism. And by the way, I didn't conclude that this stance is automatically the stance of all Marxists-Leninists, but nice try. I know it's hard for you to see just how certain aspects of the political ideology you adhere to actually enables people to come to positions such as this one.


+ I don't remember so much angry responses when some 'leftists' where hoping for a NATO intervention,and a positive 'rebel' victory.You all talked about the 'good chances' in Libya,and how the 'progressive' elements (Socialists/communists) will 'find a way to get to the masses' - to me,it looks like Libya was a disaster,and it proves how 'Marxist' are some of you.
You will surely be able to prove this assertion that some people here called for a NATO intervention (sure, there's that guy NoMasters, restricted). Otherwise, it seems that you're inventing making stuff up. Also, are you implying that posing the problem of communist intervention into the movement in Lybia in a positive (and opptimistic, factually wrong) light somehow amounts to being a fake Marxist?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I am a strong Anti-Imperialist, Syria has been quite a culturally tolerant society and in this case; i am even more so at this point. Why? Because if Syria falls it will most likely be taken over by islamist fundamentalists as they have the most resources (S.A, Qatar are reportedly supplying "intelligence" and the Telegraph wrote a few weeks back that French intelligence was helping how to use Rocketlaunchers etc., reportedly 13 French soldiers have as well been captured by the Syrian regime). If the US invades it will be the next Iraq, impoverished and a "basket-case" regarding the global market, and Syria relies heavily on trade. Basically, if Syria falls no proletarian revolution is possible, if it stays, it most likely won't as well. Just in the objective interest of the people i'd say that i am against foreign control, it is mainly strategic as we know towards destabilising Iran, and who here wants to let Imperialism get a hold of the World's Largest oil Reserves in Iran and risk the US nuking them?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

*second largest oil reserves*

[Omsk]

Marxists-Leninists generally uphold Lenin's theory of imperialism, no? And on a more of a tangential line, you do support the so called right of nations to self-determination, no?


Marxism-Leninism does not side with one imperialist power next to the other,some Marxist-Leninist might do,but that's their opinion,not a principle of Marxism-Leninism.Don't switch,nice try.


You will surely be able to prove this assertion that some people here called for a NATO intervention

Him,and a few more,but there was an entire group of those who 'initially supported' the rebels.


Also, are you implying that posing the problem of communist intervention into the movement in Lybia in a positive (and opptimistic, factually wrong) light somehow amounts to being a fake Marxist?

No,you didn't understand me,i was just ridiculing the people who thought that the uprising in Libya can become 'socialist' ,or the one in Egypt.

[Susurrus]

Not to take sides, but the Muslim Brotherhood isn't comparable to the Bolsheviks and "red hoards" in any way at all.

Not in terms of content, but in the sense that its a party allegedly being backed by foreigners and jews, both of which were accusations made against the bolsheviks by the whites, and in the sense that someone is calling for foreign powers to intervene against it.

[Rafiq]

Not in terms of content, but in the sense that its a party allegedly being backed by foreigners and jews, both of which were accusations made against the bolsheviks by the whites, and in the sense that someone is calling for foreign powers to intervene against it.

It cannot be denied that the Muslim brotherhood is being backed by Imperialism foreign to Syria. But, of course calling for another Imperialist power to intervene is counterrevolutionary. I just don't think the analogies are feasible.

[ckaihatsu]

---





Protesting against your government does NOT make you an "Imperialist rat" or a traitor and does not give the government a license to kill you.





This report indicates that the FSA is anything but grassroots....





A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, one of the main US-sponsored groups, [...]




http://wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/syri-m20.shtml


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2390602&postcount=190

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/pers-a01.shtml


Libya, imperialism and the prostration of the “left” intellectuals:

The case of Professor Juan Cole

1 April 2011

Among the most striking features of the US-NATO onslaught against Libya has been the widespread support that this “war of choice” has evoked among left-liberal parties and the affluent middle-class milieu that comprise an important part of their constituency. Waving the banner of “human rights”—the most hypocritical and deceitful of all justifications for imperialist war—the liberal left embraced this war as their own. One would imagine that this was the first time in history that imperialism had proclaimed the cause of “human rights” and democracy as a cloak for its predatory interests!

The left-liberal justifications for the US-NATO bombing of Libya are thick with moral outrage against Colonel Gaddafi, but provide virtually nothing in the way of analysis of the motives and interests of the forces, within Libya and internationally, that are seeking his overthrow. [...]

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Say hello the new Cold War. Russia fully should take all measures though to ensure that the Al-Assad regime is not invaded and that the West isn't allowed to trample on Syria as it was with Libya due to the unwillingness of China and Russia to take all measures against the NATO bombing campaign.

But with the recent Russian election, the Western attempts to invade Iran and secure itself a oil rich base for exporting capital this isn't very surprising at all. The East should remain the East though and the national bourgeois are preferable to the foreign bourgeois represented by the United States and Europe.

Ah, more nationalism in the name of anti-imperialism from our Leninist friends.

Honestly, you guys have some weird shit going on. Why is the national bourgeoisie preferable to foreign bourgeoisie (if we discount the cost of initial invasion to establish a foreign bourgeoisie as the de facto national bourgeoisie, as the national bourgeoisie will take part in foreign wars, becoming the foreign bourgeoisie in another country). So yeah, the Russians are not the national bourgeoisie, the Assad regime is not the national bourgeoisie, because they are both acting neither in the class interest, nor even in the class collaborationist interest.

Difficult to see what you're doing here aside from supporting nationalism like a tankie.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

At the moment communist forces should be building a united front of the national bourgeois and all other forces who are against US led imperialism in the region. They should be building this united front in order to inevitably become the largest force to challenge US led imperialism and seize control of the state. Until then the national bourgeois remains an important ally against US imperialism.

Yeah, let's all get behind Assad et al., to oppose US imperialism.

Because yeah, right now i'm sure the people of Homs agree that the greatest threat to them is the US, not the tanks that are mowing down young and old, male and female, indiscriminately.

You're a disgrace to the 8,000+ people who have been murdered by your beloved national fucking bourgeoisie, and the hundreds of thousands who have been injured, displaced and lost friends and family.

National fucking bourgeoisie. My oh my.:rolleyes:

[Orlov]

Yeah, let's all get behind Assad et al., to oppose US imperialism.

Because yeah, right now i'm sure the people of Homs agree that the greatest threat to them is the US, not the tanks that are mowing down young and old, male and female, indiscriminately.

You're a disgrace to the 8,000+ people who have been murdered by your beloved national fucking bourgeoisie, and the hundreds of thousands who have been injured, displaced and lost friends and family.

National fucking bourgeoisie. My oh my.:rolleyes:

It's too bad the people of Homs have been held captives by US supported terrorists and they're now facing more slaughter due to the terrorists who have been holding them captive. These are the same kind of terrorists responsible for the Lebanese massacres, they're not too different from the South Lebanese Army that was propped up by the United States and the Zionist entity.. God, I love the overwhelming sense of psuedo-morality when it comes to our 'comrades' who love to support these US proxy forces in Syria and throughout the Arab world. '8,000'? Wow, too bad it's all because they've been held hostage by foreign supported terrorists which even have Blackwater personnel in them along with French soldiers and other foreign soldiers. Save the crocodile tears for someone else.

[Omsk]

Stammer and Sickle,stop slandering an entire political branch,based on a couple of personal opinions.

[Thirsty Crow]

Stammer and Sickle,stop slandering an entire political branch,based on a couple of personal opinions.
This is what you keep on asserting without bothering to look at the factors which in the first place enable adherents of a political doctrine to come to these positions, and I maintain that there are such factors within the body of theory called Marxism-Leninism, though that doesn't amount to a condemnation of all Marxist-Leninists as supporters of these positions.

But of course, it's easier to avoid the root problem and de-politicize it as "personal opinion" (as if there was such a thing as a purely personal opinion which is totally unrelated to the body of thought referred to).

[Omsk]

though that doesn't amount to a condemnation of all Marxist-Leninists as supporters of these positions.


You said it yourself.

[Thirsty Crow]

You said it yourself.
I don't know actually why I'm bothering with your bullshit, but OK smartass, show me exactly where did I say that all Marxists-Leninists uphold these positions.

[Omsk]

I don't know actually why I'm bothering with your bullshit, but OK smartass, show me exactly where did I say that all Marxists-Leninists uphold these positions.


Why the instant outburst of hate?


This specific line is actually correct:



though that doesn't amount to a condemnation of all Marxist-Leninists as supporters of these positions.


You presented my position youself.You can't judge Marxism-Leninism and Marxist-Leninists on the opinions of a single individual.

Not to mention that the opinions Orlov has,while a bit extreme,are mostly based on realism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's too bad the people of Homs have been held captives by US supported terrorists and they're now facing more slaughter due to the terrorists who have been holding them captive. These are the same kind of terrorists responsible for the Lebanese massacres, they're not too different from the South Lebanese Army that was propped up by the United States and the Zionist entity.. God, I love the overwhelming sense of psuedo-morality when it comes to our 'comrades' who love to support these US proxy forces in Syria and throughout the Arab world. '8,000'? Wow, too bad it's all because they've been held hostage by foreign supported terrorists which even have Blackwater personnel in them along with French soldiers and other foreign soldiers. Save the crocodile tears for someone else.

Ah, so this is the situation:

Large sections of the civilian population rise up against the national bourgeoisie. National bourgeoisie starts killing said civilians. Civilians, rogue military elements and other questionable fighting elements start to form a rebel army against national bourgeoisie, taking the fight to the streets of the cities, such as Homs. National bourgeoisie tears apart the rebel army, whilst also killing ordinary civilians, as a warning.

And in all this, you say that as communists, we should get behind the National Bougeoisie to oppose US Imperialism?

Seriously mate, you're off your rocker.

[Per Levy]

Not to mention that the opinions Orlov has,while a bit extreme,are mostly based on realism.

so support for russian imperialism and for the syrian bourgeoisie and classcolaboration are a "realistic" course of action for communists to take? and what exactly is "bit extreme" of orlovs views?

[NoPasaran1936]

We can debate who to support for years to come.

My question is to Orlov, so how do you know those being killed aren't Syrian? What's your source?

Supporting Assad is absurd, you're supporting oppression. Nothing more, nothing less.

[danyboy27]

Backing a regime that is inherently corrupt(Assad republican guard got a percentage in the oil extracted) and homophobic(its written in the goddamn law peoples!) does not strike me has the right thing to do has a leftist.

The situation in syria has always been fucked up, the police and the army are corrupted to the freaking bone, no wonder peoples are turning to any options involving shooting in dirrection of these fucking assoles, even if it mean embarcing silly shit like nationalist and islamists.

[l'Enfermé]

Why the instant outburst of hate?

Because you ruin every thread with your shit-posting. Maybe.

[manic expression]

Ah, more nationalism in the name of anti-imperialism from our Leninist friends.

Honestly, you guys have some weird shit going on. Why is the national bourgeoisie preferable to foreign bourgeoisie (if we discount the cost of initial invasion to establish a foreign bourgeoisie as the de facto national bourgeoisie, as the national bourgeoisie will take part in foreign wars, becoming the foreign bourgeoisie in another country).
I think you just answered your own question.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think you just answered your own question.

No.

If you support the national bourgeoisie, you are effectively supporting nationalism....jingoism, even, because as we've seen, the national bourgeoisie often turns against its own citizens to keep hold of power, because it is the bourgeoisie.

In fact, the phrase 'national bourgeoisie' is a misnomer. Capital is international, the bourgeoisie is international.

[manic expression]

However, the importance of the self-determination of a people cannot be overstated. We have seen that the imperialist bourgeoisie, if it takes control of a country, will dispense all manner of suffering and oppression onto the working classes, and that it is vital to the interests of the workers that this not come to pass. The ability of workers to organize and struggle depends upon it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

However, the importance of the self-determination of a people cannot be overstated. We have seen that the imperialist bourgeoisie, if it takes control of a country, will dispense all manner of suffering and oppression onto the working classes, and that it is vital to the interests of the workers that this not come to pass. The ability of workers to organize and struggle depends upon it.

The only people whose self-determination we should support is the proletariat.

The proletariat of Syria, the proletariat of Russia and the proletariat of the USA.

When you have a regime like Assad's committing all manner of unspeakable acts against its own people, it looks pretty silly to be saying that we have to defend his regime against the US otherwise 'all manner of suffering and oppression will be dispensed onto the working classes'. This isn't a game. People are dying as we speak. It's real, this politics thing, it has consequences!

[bcbm]

However, the importance of the self-determination of a people cannot be overstated. We have seen that the imperialist bourgeoisie, if it takes control of a country, will dispense all manner of suffering and oppression onto the working classes

something a national bourgeoisie is never capable of.


The ability of workers to organize and struggle depends upon it.

tell me how was the ability of workers to organize in syria in say 2010?

[ckaihatsu]

The only people whose self-determination we should support is the proletariat.

The proletariat of Syria, the proletariat of Russia and the proletariat of the USA.


Yes, I really don't think *anyone* here disputes this. The problem is that real-world situations do not allow us to simply all raise a fist at the same time to overthrow the bourgeoisie everywhere and institute socialism.

Any and all efforts that build real workers consciousness and solidarity will help to cut against the overarching bourgeois geopolitical situation, as in Syria, but we should not think that the proletariat is *controlling* events right now.





When you have a regime like Assad's committing all manner of unspeakable acts against its own people, it looks pretty silly to be saying that we have to defend his regime against the US otherwise 'all manner of suffering and oppression will be dispensed onto the working classes'. This isn't a game. People are dying as we speak. It's real, this politics thing, it has consequences!


No one is saying 'Defend Assad' -- what's being said is that Syria should not fall to NATO. There's a difference.





Ah, more nationalism in the name of anti-imperialism from our Leninist friends.

Honestly, you guys have some weird shit going on. Why is the national bourgeoisie preferable to foreign bourgeoisie (if we discount the cost of initial invasion to establish a foreign bourgeoisie as the de facto national bourgeoisie, as the national bourgeoisie will take part in foreign wars, becoming the foreign bourgeoisie in another country). So yeah, the Russians are not the national bourgeoisie, the Assad regime is not the national bourgeoisie, because they are both acting neither in the class interest, nor even in the class collaborationist interest.

Difficult to see what you're doing here aside from supporting nationalism like a tankie.




If you support the national bourgeoisie, you are effectively supporting nationalism....jingoism, even, because as we've seen, the national bourgeoisie often turns against its own citizens to keep hold of power, because it is the bourgeoisie.

In fact, the phrase 'national bourgeoisie' is a misnomer. Capital is international, the bourgeoisie is international.


There are two "levels", or scales of magnitude, going on here -- the nation-based one, and the internationalist one.

Since nation-based geopolitics is ruling the day we -- at that level -- *should* like to see a national liberation / self-determination, just as much as we would support Cuba or any Third World country against U.S. imperialism. Does that mean we're *automatically* signing-on to whatever asshole strongman dictator then takes the reins there -- ? Of course not. We still want to push for *internationalist* victory, by the world's proletariat in its own best interests.

On the international level we certainly *do not* want bourgeois internationalism to win, meaning NATO.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/

[Omsk]

so support for russian imperialism and for the syrian bourgeoisie and classcolaboration are a "realistic" course of action for communists to take? and what exactly is "bit extreme" of orlovs views?


You obviously can't read - his position is a realist one compared to the position that somehow,a socialist/Marxist alternative would come up.I won't bother with your inquisition style straw-man arguments,or with Borz's attempts to discredit me becuase he failed to controll his pathetic Chechen nationalism.

[Zulu]

Marxism-leninism at its worst: "let's exchange western capitalism for eastern muslim fundamentalism/another (but eastern, also cool) form of right wing crap!". I'm not sure even Stalin would think that was a good idea...

No, he wouldn't. He'd say: "Both are worse".

Problem is that back in the day the national bourgeoisie usually fought for national liberation to develop "proper" capitalism in their countries. Now, with the globalism increasingly taking hold of the planet they just want a better "cut" from the imperialists. Which is exactly the case of Putin's phony anti-Westernism. Therefore, it's not Marxism-Leninism anymore to support national bourgeoisie. In fact, it is the Khrushchevist form of revisionism.

Well, Gaddafi, the naive Oriental anarcho-national-socialist, was kind of a cool guy. Assad, the Ayatollahs? Not so much. Not like we should lend a helping hand to the imperialists, though. Let them fight, deepening the capitalist contradictions.

[manic expression]

The only people whose self-determination we should support is the proletariat.
And how does one support the proletariat? By not caring if imperialism conquers and oppresses millions of members of that same class? No, it is necessary for progressives to oppose imperialism and support national self-determination.


something a national bourgeoisie is never capable of.
Not to the same extent, no.


tell me how was the ability of workers to organize in syria in say 2010?
Much better than workers in Iraq in 2010.

[bcbm]

Not to the same extent, no.


usually it is to more or less the exact same extent. its been a hallmark of many 'anti-imperialist' states to ban independent workers organizations, usually trying to contain them within state sponsored unions, as in syria.


Much better than workers in Iraq in 2010.

a. you're avoiding the question
b. not really

[manic expression]

usually it is to more or less the exact same extent. its been a hallmark of many 'anti-imperialist' states to ban independent workers organizations, usually trying to contain them within state sponsored unions, as in syria.
That, though, is not at all the same as liquidating unions through destructive invasion and military subjugation.


a. you're avoiding the question
b. not reallyWell on the one hand my point was always found in comparison, this is not something I changed when faced with your question. On the other, I would dispute that by pointing to the treatment of workers by the presiding forces. Could an Iraqi worker really expect to voice any genuine concern that US soldiers would listen to?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Can a Syrian worker voice a genuine concern that the Syrian regime or Syrian soldiers are any more likely to listen to than US soldiers? I have yet to see any compelling evidence that shows that the national bourgeoisie is somehow nicer to workers than an international one. On the contrary, the "national bourgeoisie" is responsible for just as many crimes against workers as the "international" one. Now, sometimes populist bourgeoisie leaders will offer "reforms" to placate labor, but not all national bourgeoisie are actually populist and these populists are responding largely to pre-existent labor movements which they are tying to coopt. The Assad regime is certainly not a populist regime.

Also the more unstable the Syrian regime becomes, the more it will latch onto Russian international Imperialism to survive, which makes any claims of being a "national bourgeoisie" even more untenable. It sure would be unfortunate for Assad if the Russian government decides that the regime is too much of an embarrassment to continue to serve Russian interests, the way the USA did with Mubarak, but that is a possibility too.

[Zulu]

Another couple of Marxist-Leninist cents.

As it is more likely that the new attempt at the world revolution will being in the "weaker links" of the global capitalist system, there is no reason support the national bourgeoisie against the imperialists. The invasions only make the development of the revolutionary situation there more likely. The situation is more like the one that was around the WWI, than that around the WWII (no USSR, and no openly genocidal Nazis).

The suffering of the peoples under the boot of the imperialist invaders and their proxies is regrettable, but that must only teach them that nationalism (support of national bourgeoisie) is not a viable option anymore, and any national liberation struggle must be attempted only on the basis of socialist internationalist solidarity.

[bcbm]

That, though, is not at all the same as liquidating unions through destructive invasion and military subjugation.

being liquidated by the national bourgeoisie probably feels about the same as being liquidated by the foreign one. in neither case are workers allowed independence, which is why our concern is for the workers and not which boss oppresses them. and there are countless examples of national bourgeoisie far exceeding foreign invaders in their cruelty.


Well on the one hand my point was always found in comparison, this is not something I changed when faced with your question. On the other, I would dispute that by pointing to the treatment of workers by the presiding forces. Could an Iraqi worker really expect to voice any genuine concern that US soldiers would listen to?well iraqi workers in 2010 could nominally form independent unions, although the 'national bourgeoisie' of iraq begin to press for a ban on this in certain sectors, which has since been expanded to a general ban on independent union activity if i remember correctly... which is pretty much the same as syria.

[Ocean Seal]

At the moment communist forces should be building a united front of the national bourgeois and all other forces who are against US led imperialism in the region. They should be building this united front in order to inevitably become the largest force to challenge US led imperialism and seize control of the state. Until then the national bourgeois remains an important ally against US imperialism.
I'm all for building anti-imperialist fronts in the third world, but this is just silly. I almost feel ashamed to call myself an anti-imperialist.

Are we against NATO/imperialism/USA? Yes.
Do we support pragmatic means against NATO aggression? Yes
Do we support Russian troops landing in Syria to protect their imperialist interests? Da Fok
It would be like supporting British colonialism to safeguard Africa from Germany.

[ckaihatsu]

Do we support Russian troops landing in Syria to protect their imperialist interests? Da Fok
It would be like supporting British colonialism to safeguard Africa from Germany.


This is a poor analogy since Syria is hardly colonized the way so many African countries were. As far as things stand right now the arrangements between Syria and Russia are on fairly even ground, geopolitically speaking.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And how does one support the proletariat? By not caring if imperialism conquers and oppresses millions of members of that same class? No, it is necessary for progressives to oppose imperialism and support national self-determination.



Stop being a tool. This conversation was about Syria, where your beloved national bourgeoisie is the one committing atrocities right now, NOT the US or any imperial forces.

How thick is your bloody skull? It is the Syrian government that is killing its own people.

[NoPasaran1936]

This is a poor analogy since Syria is hardly colonized the way so many African countries were. As far as things stand right now the arrangements between Syria and Russia are on fairly even ground, geopolitically speaking.

I suppose, imperialism has changed slightly. Yes, you're right Syria isn't colonised how Africa was, but nonetheless, Russia exploits the regime's obsession with power by selling them cheap weapons in order to make money of them. Not entirely the same, but imperialism has changed since the early 20th century.

[Zulu]

It is the Syrian government that is killing its own people.

That appears to be a very short version, the news surrogate fed to the people by the imperialist propaganda machine. Those that the Syrian government is killing have actually even less popular support that the anti-Gaddafi rebels had in Libya.

[ckaihatsu]

I suppose, imperialism has changed slightly. Yes, you're right Syria isn't colonised how Africa was, but nonetheless, Russia exploits the regime's obsession with power by selling them cheap weapons in order to make money of them. Not entirely the same, but imperialism has changed since the early 20th century.


I think we've reached the boundaries of what a class analysis is concerned with since the rest here is the details of business relationships....

[manic expression]

being liquidated by the national bourgeoisie probably feels about the same as being liquidated by the foreign one. in neither case are workers allowed independence, which is why our concern is for the workers and not which boss oppresses them. and there are countless examples of national bourgeoisie far exceeding foreign invaders in their cruelty.
I think it feels very different, since one was trying to contain unionization and the other is the destruction of the very basis of unions along with half the cities in the country.


well iraqi workers in 2010 could nominally form independent unions, although the 'national bourgeoisie' of iraq begin to press for a ban on this in certain sectors, which has since been expanded to a general ban on independent union activity if i remember correctly... which is pretty much the same as syria.
The withdrawal of US imperialist forces will no doubt improve the situation.

[bcbm]

I think it feels very different, since one was trying to contain unionization and the other is the destruction of the very basis of unions along with half the cities in the country.

point


The withdrawal of US imperialist forces will no doubt improve the situation.us forces withdrew in december. and this seems like a bit of wishful thinking given the status of unions in places where there weren't any us imperialist forces. like syria.

[Ocean Seal]

well iraqi workers in 2010 could nominally form independent unions, although the 'national bourgeoisie' of iraq begin to press for a ban on this in certain sectors, which has since been expanded to a general ban on independent union activity if i remember correctly... which is pretty much the same as syria.
Agreed, and this is why we have to get rid of the national bourgeoisie as well, but it doesn't seem like reason enough to say that national capitalism and comprador capitalism stand on even grounds.

[bcbm]

i agree they are not equal and we should oppose foreign occupation and invasion, but that does not, or at least, should not mean tailing reactionary forces

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think it feels very different, since one was trying to contain unionization and the other is the destruction of the very basis of unions along with half the cities in the country.
Well, how is that any different from what's happening in Homs?



The withdrawal of US imperialist forces will no doubt improve the situation.Any reduction in armed forces in the hands of the economic establishment would improve the situation, so there's no argument here.


Agreed, and this is why we have to get rid of the national bourgeoisie as well, but it doesn't seem like reason enough to say that national capitalism and comprador capitalism stand on even grounds.

It depends on the context. Clearly both can cook up similarly brutal and exploitative situations for their workers. As I indicated to Manic, what is occurring in Homs is no different for workers in that city than what happened in Iraq. Is it really that much worse to be a worker in Fallujah than Homs? If an American or a Syrian shell destroys the place where you earn a living, destroys your home or kills your family, you are equally wronged. The Haditha attacks in Iraq are another good example of a national bourgeoisie killing its own workers, farmers and children in the most brutal ways imaginable to preserve its power.

There's no hard distinguishing line between the two. A national bourgeoisie will latch on to an imperialist power to the degree it needs to as a way to preserve itself, which is now happening with Syria and Russia. If you look at these "national bourgeoisie" across history, they either latch onto a foreign Imperial program to survive or collapse, or become big enough that they become imperialist themselves to expand their own wealth. Thus, it seems that both are something which should be equally opposed, if in different ways.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That appears to be a very short version, the news surrogate fed to the people by the imperialist propaganda machine. Those that the Syrian government is killing have actually even less popular support that the anti-Gaddafi rebels had in Libya.

Even the civilians? Righttttt.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm all for building anti-imperialist fronts in the third world, but this is just silly. I almost feel ashamed to call myself an anti-imperialist.

Are we against NATO/imperialism/USA? Yes.
Do we support pragmatic means against NATO aggression? Yes
Do we support Russian troops landing in Syria to protect their imperialist interests? Da Fok
It would be like supporting British colonialism to safeguard Africa from Germany.

Quick correction, comrade. We are not against the USA. We are against the US bourgeoisie. I have absolutely nothing but solidarity with the US proletariat, who make up the overwhelming mass of the US population.

[Misanthrope]

The East should remain the East though and the national bourgeois are preferable to the foreign bourgeois represented by the United States and Europe.

there is only one bourgeois and one proletariat, we are internationalists..

[bcbm]

i would say there are many bourgeois but only one proletariat

[Ocean Seal]

Quick correction, comrade. We are not against the USA. We are against the US bourgeoisie. I have absolutely nothing but solidarity with the US proletariat, who make up the overwhelming mass of the US population.
I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant though. Its like when people say that they don't support North Korea. It would be opportunistic to assume that they are against the North Korean people. But I'm against the American state, and I have nothing against the American proletariat which I am part of. But, yes I thank you for the correction, I wouldn't want people to assume that I am some kind of weird third-worldist.