Obama authorized secret support for Syrian rebels

[Le Socialiste]

Not exactly surprising, but now it's out in the open:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence "finding," broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad's armed opponents - a shift that intensified following last month's failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.

But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad's opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.

Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined. The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.

...

A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.

Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad's opponents.

This "nerve center" is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.

...

This "nerve center" is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.

Turkey's moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad's departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment.

European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad's departure.

Rest of article here (http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-obama-authorizes-secret-support-syrian-rebels-010014457.html).

[Threetune]

None of the liberal ‘left’ on this forum grasp the significance of this, other than being pleased that Assad is getting a mauling from US supplied pro-imperialist reactionary stooges. Most of them really think it’s a good thing when imperialism sets about the latest bad hat as they keep ratcheting up the killing all the way towards WWIII.

[Art Vandelay]

None of the liberal ‘left’ on this forum grasp the significance of this, other than being pleased that Assad is getting a mauling from US supplied pro-imperialist reactionary stooges. Most of them really think it’s a good thing when imperialism sets about the latest bad hat as they keep ratcheting up the killing all the way towards WWIII.

While I don't deny the fact the revleft population has its fair share of liberals, I don't think anyone is cheering on imperialism.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

What has happened in Libya and Syria amongst the First-World reactionary "Left" is the equivalent to cheering on the Contras in the 1980s.

The First-World "Left" has exposed itself as thoroughly and utterly reactionary.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You said it bro, now let me get some of that hate amerikkka beat

[Art Vandelay]

What has happened in Libya and Syria amongst the First-World reactionary "Left" is the equivalent to cheering on the Contras in the 1980s.

The First-World "Left" has exposed itself as thoroughly and utterly reactionary.

Is this a 3rd worldist we got on our hands?

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Is this a 3rd worldist we got on our hands?

I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist.

Lenin himself (Marx & Engels as well) is very clear about the parasitic nature of the Labor Aristocracy in the imperialist countries. It is a Leninist position that the Labor Aristocracy in the imperialist countries (aka the First-World) are both a parasitic elements, like their capitalist class, and are active agents in the fight against revolution.

If that makes me a "3rd worldist," then Leninism is Third-Worldism.

If not, then I suppose I am not.

[Red Banana]

What has happened in Libya and Syria amongst the First-World reactionary "Left" is the equivalent to cheering on the Contras in the 1980s.

The First-World "Left" has exposed itself as thoroughly and utterly reactionary.

So does that mean you support Assad as opposed to the rebels?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Has anyone actually made a post directly supporting the fsa? All I've seen are people pointing out what a piece of shit Assad is and anti-imperialists flailing around attacking an enemy that doesn't even seem to exist on these boards.

[Threetune]

You said it bro, now let me get some of that hate amerikkka beat

If you have the brain and guts, do it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist.

Lenin himself (Marx & Engels as well) is very clear about the parasitic nature of the Labor Aristocracy in the imperialist countries. It is a Leninist position that the Labor Aristocracy in the imperialist countries (aka the First-World) are both a parasitic elements, like their capitalist class, and are active agents in the fight against revolution.

If that makes me a "3rd worldist," then Leninism is Third-Worldism.

If not, then I suppose I am not.

What country do you live in? Are you a parasite, too?

[Welshy]

I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist.

Lenin himself (Marx & Engels as well) is very clear about the parasitic nature of the Labor Aristocracy in the imperialist countries. It is a Leninist position that the Labor Aristocracy in the imperialist countries (aka the First-World) are both a parasitic elements, like their capitalist class, and are active agents in the fight against revolution.

If that makes me a "3rd worldist," then Leninism is Third-Worldism.

If not, then I suppose I am not.

Do you think all or most of the working class in first world countries are members of the labor aristocracy?

[Threetune]

You have a working class revolutionary position or you don’t.
We will help you before you help us.

[Threetune]

What country do you live in? Are you a parasite, too?

Here comes the judge 'The Boss'. Above class society and struggle. Ha!

[Art Vandelay]

You have a working class revolutionary position or you don’t.
We will help you before you help us.

Fucking stupid. Marx and Engels popularized the idea that revolution would break out in the most industrialized nations first, ie: where the forces of production are the most developed. Lenin was a disciplined Marxist; don't lump him in with your bullshit revisions. There is a difference between the theory of the labor aristocracy and saying what you and the other idiot posted above.

[Threetune]

Leninism prevented the world degenerating into complete collapsed in 1917.
And it will again. read on comrade read on.

[Prinskaj]

Leninism prevented the world degenerating into complete collapsed in 1917.
And it will again. read on comrade read on.
Go easy on the idealism, it doesn't belong here.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Do you think all or most of the working class in first world countries are members of the labor aristocracy?

This is a difficult question that I believe deserves close study. Lenin however, went to great pains to point out, that even before the imperialist era, Marx and Engels observed the very real phenomenon of the bourgeoisification of the British proletariat.



These two trends, one might even say two parties, in the present-day labour movement, which in 1914–16 so obviously parted ways all over the world, were traced by Engels and Marx in England throughout the course of decades, roughly from 1858 to 1892.

Neither Marx nor Engels lived to see the imperialist epoch of world capitalism, which began not earlier than 1898–1900. But it has been a peculiar feature of England that even in the middle of the nineteenth century she already revealed at least two major distinguishing features of imperialism: (1) vast colonies, and (2) monopoly profit (due to her monopoly position in the world market). In both respects England at that time was an exception among capitalist countries, and Engels and Marx, analysing this exception, quite clearly and definitely indicated its connection with the (temporary) victory of opportunism in the English labour movement.

In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “...The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.” In a letter to Sorge, dated September 21, 1872, Engels informs him that Hales kicked up a big row in the Federal Council of the International and secured a vote of censure on Marx for saying that “the English labour leaders had sold themselves”. Marx wrote to Sorge on August 4, 1874: “As to the urban workers here [in England], it is a pity that the whole pack of leaders did not get into Parliament. This would be the surest way of getting rid of the whole lot.” In a letter to Marx, dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks about “those very worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.” In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.”

What percentage of the Western proletariat belongs to the Labor Aristocracy is a sociological question that no one dares to ask or study. I could venture a guess, but it would just be that; a guess. However, we know that it is quite large, and includes the vast majority of the so-called "Left." This we know because of the tools of analysis we possess to identify the trends of opportunism.

To quote Lenin at the Second Congress of the Communist International:



Comrades, Serrati has said that we have not yet invented a sincerometer—meaning by this French neologism an instrument for measuring sincerity. No such instrument has been invented yet. We have no need of one. But we do already have an instrument for defining trends. Comrade Serrati’s error, which I shall deal with later, consists in his having failed to use this instrument, which has been known for a long time.

This instrument we possess is our analysis of Western imperialism, and how the so-called "Left" relates itself to it. Utilizing this instrument, which is a basic tool in the Leninist arsenal, demonstrates that the vast majority of the Western so-called "Left" are social-chauvinists and opportunists (aka Social-Fascists).

America and the countries of Western of Europe are OPPRESSOR NATIONS. It is the Leninist position to emphasize the distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations. To quote Lenin again:



First, what is the cardinal idea underlying our theses? It is the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations. Unlike the Second International and bourgeois democracy, we emphasise this distinction. In this age of imperialism, it is particularly important for the proletariat and the Communist International to establish the concrete economic facts and to proceed from concrete realities, not from abstract postulates, in all colonial and national problems.

The characteristic feature of imperialism consists in the whole world, as we now see, being divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an insignificant number of oppressor nations, the latter possessing colossal wealth and powerful armed forces. The vast majority of the world’s population, over a thousand million, perhaps even 1,250 million people, if we take the total population of the world as 1,750 million, in other words, about 70 per cent of the world’s population, belong to the oppressed nations, which are either in a state of direct colonial dependence or are semi-colonies, as, for example, Persia, Turkey and China, or else, conquered by some big imperialist power, have become greatly dependent on that power by virtue of peace treaties. This idea of distinction, of dividing the nations into oppressor and oppressed, runs through the theses, not only the first theses published earlier over my signature, but also those submitted by Comrade Roy. The latter were framed chiefly from the standpoint of the situation in India and other big Asian countries oppressed by Britain. Herein lies their great importance to us.

This is a basic tenant of Leninism that is systematically violated by the majority of the Western so-called "Left." They place themselves firmly in the camp of opportunism and social-chauvinism.

It should also be noted, that the Western so-called "Left" is a tiny, tiny minority of people, that are out and out apologists of imperialism. I do not know where the majority of the masses of the First-World proletariat stands in relation to imperialism, or even if they have ever thought seriously about the question.

But it is clear where the Western so-called "Left" stands.

[RedHammer]

I support Assad only in the limited sense that I oppose the "rebellion"

[Threetune]

Go easy on the idealism, it doesn't belong here.

You do

[Threetune]

I support Assad only in the limited sense that I oppose the "rebellion"

Leninism does not do that.

[Tim Cornelis]

Which countries are "oppressed" and which are the "oppressor" countries? Does affluent equate "oppressor" and poor equate "oppressed"?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I, as always, align myself with the oppressed classes of the world and, as such, I can conjure up no support for either Assad or the 'rebels'.

This is yet another affair in which the proletariat is screwed despite the outcome and the idea of leftists taking one side over another is preposterous.

I just hope that the deaths of innocent civilians can be avoided as much as possible while two bourgeois forces fight it out for a victory - a victory of the ruling class.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oppressor and oppressed nations?

Wtf? What sort of national-chauvinist analysis is this? So the world will be a better place when the mighty China, North Korea and Syria defeat the other imperialists?

Whatever happened to good old class analysis? You know, the oppressed class and the oppressor class. What was then name? Oh yeah, Marxism!:rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

None of the liberal ‘left’ on this forum grasp the significance of this, other than being pleased that Assad is getting a mauling from US supplied pro-imperialist reactionary stooges. Most of them really think it’s a good thing when imperialism sets about the latest bad hat as they keep ratcheting up the killing all the way towards WWIII.

except literally no one supports the rebels though

[RedHammer]

Here's what I'm wondering. What is the Syrian Communist Party doing in all of this? Is there a radical left presence in Syria?

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Here's what I'm wondering. What is the Syrian Communist Party doing in all of this? Is there a radical left presence in Syria?

The Communist Party of Syria (Bakdash) and the Communist Party of Syria (Faisal) participated in the elections under the new constitution, and won 11 seats.

[L.A.P.]

So a pro-Gorbachev political party that refers to itself as the "Communist Party" and another nationalist party that does the same being elected to the Syrian legislative authority, note that they both collaborate with the clearly bourgeois Assad government under the 'National Progressive Front', constitutes as presence of the radical left?

[Fight Social-Fascism]

So a pro-Gorbachev political party that refers to itself as the "Communist Party" and another nationalist party that does the same being elected to the Syrian legislative authority, note that they both collaborate with the clearly bourgeois Assad government under the 'National Progressive Front', constitutes as presence of the radical left?

Yes.

Fighting imperialism is what communists are supposed to do.

Regardless of the failings of these parties, they are far, far better than the vast, vast majority of the so-called "Left" parties in the West, who are objectively Social-Fascist. The Western so-called "Left" are active agents of imperialism, and purposefully lie to the masses in the West, to get them on board with their bourgeois masters' imperialist projects.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes.

Fighting imperialism is what communists are supposed to do.

Regardless of the failings of these parties, they are far, far better than the vast, vast majority of the so-called "Left" parties in the West, who are objectively Social-Fascist. The Western so-called "Left" are active agents of imperialism, and purposefully lie to the masses in the West, to get them on board with their bourgeois masters' imperialist projects.

Team Amerikkka, fukkk yeah! :rolleyes:

So tell me, why, in Marxist terms, is supporting a capitalist dictator who will kill thousands of his own people to stay in power, better than supporting a capitalist dictatorship which will kill thousands of people in foreign lands to stay in power? Your point makes no sense, it merely leads to petty nationalism. Besides, that same ideology, as proved by Qaddafi's interests to make a greater Africa, would happily adopt imperial policies. The only reason it doesn't is because it is not powerful enough.

Capitalism is capitalism. There is no better or worse capitalism, it's all the same and will always reduce itself to murder, imperialism and the exploitation of the working class to maintain its power.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes.

Fighting imperialism is what communists are supposed to do.

Regardless of the failings of these parties, they are far, far better than the vast, vast majority of the so-called "Left" parties in the West, who are objectively Social-Fascist. The Western so-called "Left" are active agents of imperialism, and purposefully lie to the masses in the West, to get them on board with their bourgeois masters' imperialist projects.

These two "communist parties" were members of the centre-left, nationalist, bourgeois alliance—the National Progressive Front—well before the insurrection.


Regardless of the failings of these parties, they are far, far better than the vast, vast majority of the so-called "Left" parties in the West, who are objectively Social-Fascist.

This is beyond stupid. You use fascism without any context or content, just as a buzzword. On what basis are they "social-fascist"?


The Western so-called "Left" are active agents of imperialism, and purposefully lie to the masses in the West, to get them on board with their bourgeois masters' imperialist projects.

Name one revolutionary leftist party or organisation that supports imperialism.



Here's what I'm wondering. What is the Syrian Communist Party doing in all of this? Is there a radical left presence in Syria?

There seem to be four Leninist Communist Parties (but I'm not sure about that), two of which would be deemed "revisionist" and participate in the National Progressive Front, the other two are against the regime.

EDIT:

The two Leninist parties in opposition are Communist Labour Party and the Democratic People's Party, but the latter adopted a reformist standpoint.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

So tell me, why, in Marxist terms, is supporting a capitalist dictator who will kill thousands of his own people to stay in power, better than supporting a capitalist dictatorship which will kill thousands of people in foreign lands to stay in power?I have already quite extensively explained the Leninist position. Leninists emphasize as a matter of principle the distinction between oppressor and oppressed nation. You explicitly reject Leninism, on the ridiculous grounds that you believe making this distinction is a "national-chauvinist analysis."

The only "national-chauvinist" is you, and most of the Social-Fascist Western "Left."

The Leninist position, of course, is that during any reactionary war, Revolutionaries can only wish for the defeat of their own government. To quote Lenin:


This is an instance of high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism. A “revolutionary struggle against the war” is merely an empty and meaning less exclamation, something at which the heroes of the Second International excel, unless it means revolutionary action against one’s own government even in wartime. One has only to do some thinking in order to understand this. Wartime revolutionary action against one’s own government indubitably means, not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such a defeat. ("Discerning reader”: note that this does not mean “blowing up bridges”, organising unsuccessful strikes in the war industries, and ·in general helping the government defeat the revolutionaries.)

The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany. (Bukvoyed and Semkovsky give more direct expression to the “thought”, or rather want of thought, which they share with Trotsky.) But Trotsky regards this as the “methodology of social-patriotism"! To help people that are unable to think for themselves, the Berne resolution (Sotsial Demokrat No. 40) made it clear, that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government. Bukvoyed and Trotsky preferred to avoid this truth, while Semkovsky (an opportunist who is more useful to the working class than all the others, thanks to his naively frank reiteration of bourgeois wisdom) blurted out the following: “This is nonsense, because either Germany or Russia can win” (Izvestia No. 2).

Take the example of the Paris Commune. France was defeated by Germany but the workers were defeated by Bismarck and Thiers! Had Bukvoyed and Trotsky done a little thinking, they would have realised that they have adopted the viewpoint on the war held by governments and the bourgeoisie, i.e., that they cringe to the “political methodology of social-patriotism”, to use Trotsky’s pretentious language.

A revolution in wartime means civil war; the conversion of a war between governments into a civil war is, on the one hand, facilitated by military reverses ("defeats") of governments; on the other hand, one cannot actually strive for such a conversion without thereby facilitating defeat.

The reason why the chauvinists (including the Organising Committee and the Chkheidze group) repudiate the defeat “slogan” is that this slogan alone implies a consistent call for revolutionary action against one’s own government in wartime. Without such action, millions of ultra-revolutionary phrases such as a war against “the war and the conditions, etc." are not worth a brass farthing.

The Western so-called "Left" wants nothing to do with this slogan. The Western so-called "Left" is objectively apologetic toward their own imperialist masters, and all their rhetoric goes toward justifying the imperialist projects of their bourgeois masters.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

This is beyond stupid. You use fascism without any context or content, just as a buzzword. On what basis are they "social-fascist"?This analysis, which you think is "beyond stupid," was the central thesis driving all communist activity up to the WW2, and what allowed the October Revolution to happen in the first place. Millions and millions of communists, all over the world, saw Social-Democracy as nothing but treachery, as actively facilitating imperialism and fascism, as systematically misleading the workers on behalf of Monopoly Finance Capital.

This history (and the theory behind it), have been systematically hidden and distorted by the pseudo-Left apologists of imperialism in the West. The official communist parties of the West (except in Germany, where the KPD championed the line) always skirted the fence between revolutionary politics and crass opportunism. Because of the practical considerations of fighting the Hitlerite menace, even these parties become social-chauvinist and opportunist.

Social-Fascism is nothing more than a new vocabulary term, used in the continuation of Lenin's ruthless war on opportunism. Only the fight against "Left" opportunism can lead to our victory. Our victory is the victory over the opportunists. To quote Lenin:



The proletariat is the child of capitalism—of world capitalism, and not only of European capitalism, or of imperialist capitalism. On a world scale, fifty years sooner or fifty years later—measured on a world scale, this is a minor point—the “proletariat” of course “will be” united, and revolutionary Social-Democracy will “inevitably” be victorious within it. But that is not the point, Messrs. Kautskyites. The point is that at the present time, in the imperialist countries of Europe, you are fawning on the opportunists, who are alien to the proletariat as a class, who are the servants, the agents of the bourgeoisie and the vehicles of its influence, and unless the labour movement rids itself of them, it will remain a bourgeois labour movement. By advocating “unity” with the opportunists, with the Legiens and Davids, the Plekhanovs, the Chkhenkelis and Potresovs, etc., you are, objectively, defending the enslavement of the workers by the imperialist bourgeoisie with the aid of its best agents in the labour movement. The victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy on a world scale is absolutely inevitable, only it is moving and will move, is proceeding and will proceed, against you, it will be a victory over you.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So the wishy-washy liberals/'social-fascists' in the first world are whats holding you back from putting Leading Light Communism or Maoism Third Worldism or whatever your cult is calling itself now, into power? Not the fact that your organization exists only on the internet and that it only consists of a few dozen shut-ins? Or that any rational person is instantly put off by reading your program, which more or less equates to genocide?

What's holding you back from victory is the fact that you are an anachronism, and possibly psychologically unstable.

[Welshy]

I have already quite extensively explained the Leninist position. Leninists emphasize as a matter of principle the distinction between oppressor and oppressed nation. You explicitly reject Leninism, on the ridiculous grounds that you believe making this distinction is a "national-chauvinist analysis."


Can you provide quotes on this, because I could have sworn that Lenin argued the primary contradiction was between the Capitalists and Workers, not between nations. But hey what do I know I'm just a western social-fascist apparently. (also nice use of that term out of historical context, buddy)



The Leninist position, of course, is that during any reactionary war, Revolutionaries can only wish for the defeat of their own government. To quote Lenin:


[B]

The Western so-called "Left" wants nothing to do with this slogan. The Western so-called "Left" is objectively apologetic toward their own imperialist masters, and all their rhetoric goes toward justifying the imperialist projects of their bourgeois masters.

All wars between capitalist powers are reactionary. So unless you are going to claim that Syria isn't capitalist then the communist parties of Syria should fight to overthrow their government. So if anything the quote you provided is more of a condemnation of the Syrian Communist parties than anything.

Also let me be clear I very much oppose the rebels. They are reactionary and deserve no support by anyone who considers themself a revolutionary. But I refuse to support nationalism anywhere, whether its in US where I live or if its in other countries. It is not the role of communists to support nationalism.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

So the wishy-washy liberals/'social-fascists' in the first world are whats holding you back from putting Leading Light Communism or Maoism Third Worldism or whatever your cult is calling itself now, into power? Not the fact that your organization exists only on the internet and that it only consists of a few dozen shut-ins? Or that any rational person is instantly put off by reading your program, which more or less equates to genocide?

What's holding you back from victory is the fact that you are an anachronism, and possibly psychologically unstable.

I am not, nor have I ever been (lol) a member of the LLCO. While some of the things they say are correct, I believe they have no serious plan of action to undertake in the First-World. I also highly dislike the fact that they liquidate the National Question in the America. To the LLCO, the oppressed nations inside America are also net-exploiters.

Some of the mathematical arguments they use to justify their positions have no real basis in Marxist economics either. If they want to prove that everyone in the First-World benefits from imperialist super-exploitation, they need to develop a more thorough analysis, based on the principles of the Labor Theory of Value, and not simple arithmetic of national GDP figures.

I also think they take many hypocritical positions, but that is typical of Western so-called "Maoism."

[Tim Cornelis]

This analysis, which you think is "beyond stupid,"

Your use of the word "fascist" is beyond stupid.

As I already asked you before:

Name one revolutionary leftist party or organisation that supports imperialism.

Which countries are "oppressed" and which are the "oppressor" countries? Does affluent equate "oppressor" and poor equate "oppressed"?


I have already quite extensively explained the Leninist position. Leninists emphasize as a matter of principle the distinction between oppressor and oppressed nation. You explicitly reject Leninism, on the ridiculous grounds that you believe making this distinction is a "national-chauvinist analysis."

The only "national-chauvinist" is you, and most of the Social-Fascist Western "Left."

The Leninist position, of course, is that during any reactionary war, Revolutionaries can only wish for the defeat of their own government. To quote Lenin:



The Western so-called "Left" wants nothing to do with this slogan. The Western so-called "Left" is objectively apologetic toward their own imperialist masters, and all their rhetoric goes toward justifying the imperialist projects of their bourgeois masters.

national-chauvinist analysis.

Ever considered the possibility that Lenin might be wrong in that regard? Or do you take his word as gospel.
In any case, the person you were responding to is not a Leninist, he is a Marxist, so saying "Lenin said..." is not helpful anyway.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Can you provide quotes on this, because I could have sworn that Lenin argued the primary contradiction was between the Capitalists and Workers, not between nations.Western radiKKKals believe all sorts of ridiculous things about Marxism and Leninism, so your mistake is understandable.

In post number 18 in this thread, I provided the source. Here it is again, in case you care to read it this time:



First, what is the cardinal idea underlying our theses? It is the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations. Unlike the Second International and bourgeois democracy, we emphasise this distinction. In this age of imperialism, it is particularly important for the proletariat and the Communist International to establish the concrete economic facts and to proceed from concrete realities, not from abstract postulates, in all colonial and national problems.

The characteristic feature of imperialism consists in the whole world, as we now see, being divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an insignificant number of oppressor nations, the latter possessing colossal wealth and powerful armed forces. The vast majority of the world’s population, over a thousand million, perhaps even 1,250 million people, if we take the total population of the world as 1,750 million, in other words, about 70 per cent of the world’s population, belong to the oppressed nations, which are either in a state of direct colonial dependence or are semi-colonies, as, for example, Persia, Turkey and China, or else, conquered by some big imperialist power, have become greatly dependent on that power by virtue of peace treaties. This idea of distinction, of dividing the nations into oppressor and oppressed, runs through the theses, not only the first theses published earlier over my signature, but also those submitted by Comrade Roy. The latter were framed chiefly from the standpoint of the situation in India and other big Asian countries oppressed by Britain. Herein lies their great importance to us.

The document in question is Lenin's The Second Congress Of The Communist International. I would provide a link, but I need 25 posts before I can do that, so you will have to google it yourself.


All wars between capitalist powers are reactionary.Not all wars are reactionary. In fact, Leninists support war in many instances. To quote Lenin:



But in this principal argument lies the disarmament advocates’ principal error. Socialists cannot, without ceasing to be socialists, be opposed to all war.

Firstly, socialists have never been, nor can they ever be, opposed to revolutionary wars. The bourgeoisie of the imperialist “Great” Powers has become thoroughly reactionary, and the war this bourgeoisie is now waging we regard as a reactionary, slave-owners’ and criminal war. But what about a war against this bourgeoisie? A war, for instance, waged by peoples oppressed by and dependent upon this bourgeoisie, or by colonial peoples, for liberation? In Section 5 of the Internationale group these we read: “National wars are no longer possible in the era of this unbridled imperialism.” That is obviously wrong.

The history of the 20th century, this century of “unbridled imperialism,” is replete with colonial wars. But what we Europeans, the imperialist oppressors of the majority of the world’s peoples, with our habitual, despicable European chauvinism, call “colonial wars” are often national wars, or national rebellions of these oppressed peoples. One of the main features of imperialism is that it accelerates capitalist development in the most backward countries, and thereby extends and intensifies the struggle against national oppression. That is a fact, and from it inevitably follows that imperialism must often give rise to national wars. Junius, who defends the above-quoted “theses” in her pamphlet, says that in the imperialist era every national war against an imperialist Great Power leads to intervention of a rival imperialist Great Power. Every national war is this turned into an imperialist war. But that argument is wrong, too. This can happen, but does not always happen. Many colonial wars between 1900 and 1914 did not follow that course. And it would be simply ridiculous to declare, for instance, that after the present war, if it ends in the utter exhaustion of all the belligerents, “there can be no” national, progress, revolutionary wars “of any kind”, wages, say, by China in alliance with India, Persia, Siam, etc., against the Great Powers.

To deny all possibility of national wars under imperialism is wrong in theory, obviously mistaken historically, and tantamount to European chauvinism in practice: we who belong to nations that oppress hundreds of millions in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc., are invited to tell the oppressed peoples that it is “impossible” for them to wage war against “our” nations!

Secondly, civil war is just as much a war as any other. He who accepts the class struggle cannot fail to accept civil wars, which in every class society are the natural, and under certain conditions inevitable, continuation, development and intensification of the class struggle. That has been confirmed by every great revolution. To repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, is to fall into extreme opportunism and renounce the socialist revolution.

It is clear that the Syrian Contras are nothing more than representatives of the thoroughly reactionary imperialist powers, and their client regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The war in Syria, is partly a war to prevent the re-colonization of Syria by the imperialist powers. It also has partly the character of a civil war, which are expressions of heightened class struggle.. This character of the war already has liberated the Kurdish people in Northern Syria, which is now under the control of the Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan Workers Party. This aspect of the war can only result in more and more gains for the workers of Syria, as they are desperately resisting the forces of American and European imperialism.

The Western so-called "Left," however, are champions of the Syrian Contras. The Syrian Contras are thoroughly and utterly reactionary, just like the vast majority of the Western so-called "Left," which have been acting as active agents of imperialism for their imperialists masters for a very, very long time.

[Threetune]

except literally no one supports the rebels though

The ‘left’ position is that Syria has no right to self determination because it’s a capitalist country. It has no right to defend itself from terrorists, backed by other gangs of capitalist. The Syrian government should immediately surrender in order to avoid our ‘left’ charge of ‘oppression’.

Communists in the dominant imperialist states must join in with us ‘lefts’ in “condemning” Assad for his capitalist oppression or be pilloried and falsely accused of “supporting” Assad and the ruling class of Syria.

We ‘left’ opportunists know of course that communists (Leninists) expressly don’t “support” Assad but we will say it anyway in a vain attempt to undermine the communist argument which we actually hate more than capitalism by a long way, and this is how we objectively give real support and comfort to imperialism and its agents at ‘home’ and abroad.

That’s it really.

[Tim Cornelis]

Western radiKKKals

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg

Would you please answer my questions?


The ‘left’ position is that Syria has no right to self determination because it’s a capitalist country.

This is nationalism. National self-determination is the right of the country's elite to govern their country as it wishes. Why anyone, let alone revolutionary leftists, should support it beats me.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Would you please answer my questions?Your "questions" are mostly asked to be able to deny the Western so-called "Left" actually supports imperialism. It would be trivial to start listing the names of famous "Leftists" and radiKKKal organizations that whole-heartedly endorse the Syrian Contras as "revolutionaries." They are well known to anyone who has been paying attention to anything since February of last year, during the build-up to the NATO bombing of Libya, when nearly the entirety of the Western so-called "Left" completely and utterly exposed itself as incapable of mounting even a theoretical challenge to Western imperialism (let alone actually getting in the streets and organizing to oppose it).

What I think you want, actually, is to debate the idiotic phrase-mongering of these Western so-called "Leftists," who butcher Marxism and Leninism, and turn them into their exact opposites, in order to justify their own social-chauvinism and opportunism.

It's also blatantly obvious which countries are oppressor nations and which are oppressed nations. That you ask, again, shows your own wilfulness to distort the plain revolutionary teachings of Marx and Lenin.

[Tim Cornelis]

Your "questions" are mostly asked to be able to deny the Western so-called "Left" actually supports imperialism. It would be trivial to start listing the names of famous "Leftists" and radiKKKal organizations that whole-heartedly endorse the Syrian Contras as "revolutionaries." They are well known to anyone who has been paying attention to anything since February of last year, during the build-up to the NATO bombing of Libya, when nearly the entirety of the Western so-called "Left" completely and utterly exposed itself as incapable of mounting even a theoretical challenge to Western imperialism (let alone actually getting in the streets and organizing to oppose it).

What I think you want, actually, is to debate the idiotic phrase-mongering of these Western so-called "Leftists," who butcher Marxism and Leninism, and turn them into their exact opposites, in order to justify their own social-chauvinism and opportunism.

It's also blatantly obvious which countries are oppressor nations and which are oppressed nations. That you ask, again, shows your own wilfulness to distort the plain revolutionary teachings of Marx and Lenin.

You sound like a tape recorder. Loads of rhetoric, little content. Also, nothing you said was true.

[Threetune]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg

Would you please answer my questions?



This is nationalism. National self-determination is the right of the country's elite to govern their country as it wishes. Why anyone, let alone revolutionary leftists, should support it beats me.

But the capitalist ruling class of Syria are nationalist. What else would they be? “Oh shame” screen the ‘lefts’, “we are so pure in our devotion to some mythical concept of Marxism that we can barley recognise the existence of a nationalist ruling class without being overcome with indignation pretending that we know nothing about the historical development of all nations.” Pretending that they can somehow just evaporate in order to satisfy our idealist untarnished view of how the world ‘should’ be.”

On the other hand the communist workers in Syria (it’s a national state you know) have to live and die with the reality of foreign backed terrorism and the actual national state. They can’t, like the well healed western ‘lefts’ decide not to take a position because they don’t “like” both sides. They have to develop their general anti-imperialism into a revolutionary strategy that can defend ‘their territory’ against invading imperialism and its agents and defeat the ruling class in that territory. They don’t have the luxury of ignoring reality.

[Per Levy]

The Western so-called "Left," however, are champions of the Syrian Contras. The Syrian Contras are thoroughly and utterly reactionary, just like the vast majority of the Western so-called "Left," which have been acting as active agents of imperialism for their imperialists masters for a very, very long time.

yeah, coming from a western "leftie" thanked by western "leftiests". also as was being said almonst no on fupports fsa but hey whatever, dont let facts get in the way of patronizing so a western "leftie" can feel good about himself.


This character of the war already has liberated the Kurdish people in Northern Syria, which is now under the control of the Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan Workers Party.

and this is so :laugh:

[Threetune]

yeah, coming from a western "leftie" thanked by western "leftiests". also as was being said almonst no on fupports fsa but hey whatever, dont let facts get in the way of patronizing so a western "leftie" can feel good about himself.



and this is so :laugh:

Of course the ’lefts’ won’t be court out supporting this kind of atrocity
overtly http://current.com/community/93862271_war-crime-syrian-rebels-execute-pows.htm (http://current.com/community/93862271_war-crime-syrian-rebels-execute-pows.htm) and they will, on all kinds of ‘moral’ grounds, ‘protest’ at their government’s aid to the Syrian rebs but it will all be drowned out by post after tedious post pouring the blame on the Syrian government for all the evils of the war and falsely accusing communists of ‘supporting’ Assad. In this way they give real propaganda support to imperialism and its agents, while denying that that is in fact what they are doing just as they did in Libya.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/cia-spies-sent-on-secret-syrian-1215062 (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/cia-spies-sent-on-secret-syrian-1215062)

http://www.rt.com/news/syria-opposition-weapon-smuggling-843/ (http://www.rt.com/news/syria-opposition-weapon-smuggling-843/)

[agnixie]

snip.

This is terrible posting and you should feel bad for even assuming a single word of it was in some way, shape or form a smart critique of anything. It's not even good trolling.


This character of the war already has liberated the Kurdish people in Northern Syria

It's like you know fuck all about the history of the Kurds over, oh, just the past 20 years - Syrian Kurds spent the most part of Bashar al Assad's reign not as second class citizens, but as non citizens of a territory they've lived on for many thousand years. You're a complete caricature and as far as I'm concerned you're one of this board's most blatant and prolific troll, every single post you write is more deluded nonsense about a nationalist, Renanist party and a monarchic president somehow being open to Leninism.