Syrian civil war

[Juche]

Hello everyone. I'm wondering what we all think about Syrias civil war. Who's side are we one? etc?

Personally I see the armed rebel movement as an act of provocation by the imperialists to cause disorder and chaos in the middle east.

Since the rebels consist mostly of foreign fighters and Islamic right wing extremists who are supported by America and it's other imperialist allies I'm naturally going to side with the government on this war. Not to mention the government has a secular and somewhat socialist branch to it.

I found this video on youtube called "Syria what is really going on and why" very interesting. And it makes sense if it's really about imperialism.

[Prometeo liberado]

Not to mention the government has a secular and somewhat socialist branch to it.
Oh well then, by all means if Syria has a socialist "branch" to it then we sure as hell must throw in our lot with these branch socialists. Please. The only side to take here is the side of, you guessed it, the working class. The Baathists are worthy of no more than to be defended against imperialism. Having said that, Assad and all his ilk should be the focus of those guns once they vanquish the enemy.

[Sasha]

"thread started by user Juche on whether to support a bourgeois capitalist hereditary dictatorship"
I wonder what the OP's conclusion will be.... :rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

Why do we have to "take sides" so casually as if this is a football match?

Taking a side in a conflict such as this is like taking sides in bourgeois elections - why take the side of one wing of the bourgeoisie? There is no working class political alternative so any distinguished communist is going to be neutral on this issue.

From those that see either the rebels or the Assad government as better than the other are likely to be the same types to call for a critical vote for liberal parties.

[Juche]

Why do we have to "take sides" so casually as if this is a football match?

Taking a side in a conflict such as this is like taking sides in bourgeois elections - why take the side of one wing of the bourgeoisie? There is no working class political alternative so any distinguished communist is going to be neutral on this issue.

From those that see either the rebels or the Assad government as better than the other are likely to be the same types to call for a critical vote for liberal parties.

Well it's not necessarily to take sides in black and white.
It's mostly because I thought of it as a fight against American imperialism.
Like the Libyan civil war. I naturally took Gaddafi's side because of his anti-imperialist stance. I viewed America and the West's involvement as imperialism.

And of course. I'm not sure if you heard about the racist killing of Blacks in Libya. I thought we stood against that sort of thing. I'm not sure if the rebels in Syria have the same plans as the ones in Libya.

Have you seen the youtube video called "Gaddafi Sodomized by NATO Rebels"
by MaoistRebelNews2? If not I'd recommend it. I'm not sure what you think of him.

[Sir Comradical]

I support the Syrian Army.

[cynicles]

Both sides are general shit.

[ckaihatsu]

---





Why do we have to "take sides" so casually as if this is a football match?

Taking a side in a conflict such as this is like taking sides in bourgeois elections - why take the side of one wing of the bourgeoisie? There is no working class political alternative so any distinguished communist is going to be neutral on this issue.

From those that see either the rebels or the Assad government as better than the other are likely to be the same types to call for a critical vote for liberal parties.











so your opinion is to support assad, who is in the pockets of russian imperialism? so only choices are support either western or eastern imperialism. sorry im not into the whole "lesser evil" thing.


Hey, that's real cute, Slick -- you've managed to 'one-up' me by ignoring reality and making your *own* fantasy choices -- ! Can I come and live on whatever planet *you're* on -- ?

This isn't some contrived ritual to demonstrate fealty through voting on a bourgeois sack-race -- it's *what's happening*, and you can "abstain" from it if you like, but the situation nonetheless gets shittier. Again, look at what happened to Libya once NATO was invited in by the locals.





With no better options it's preferable to counter Western imperialism, at the geopolitical level, by supporting self-determination for the *country* of Syria, regardless of who happens to be running it.

[James Connolly]

Isn't the Syrian Communist party in the same coalition as the Baathist party?

I generally support the state against movements of little importance as the Syrian civil war. There is a fine line between being a Partisan and an Insurgent. For the Syrian government, I'd say they deserve to be ousted and replaced by a workers' party, but that's not a realistic stance.

It also seems the world is maneuvering for another Imperialist war, and since such a thing is occurring, it is best to support stability over opportunism.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't support any side except for the working class

[Karabin]

The situation in Syria is just another example of Western Imperialism trying to weaken the influence of multiple Arabic countries in the Middle East. Libya is the other example of this.

The problem facing any of our comrades that are in favour of the insurgency in Syria right now is the fact that western styled democracy so far in these regions has been a disaster ever since attempts were made to implement this, and western democracy (As most of us will already know) has only served to promote the interest of western bourgeois in the region.

An example of this is Libya, where the National Transitional Council gave the French control of over 35% of Libya's crude oil (Source (http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-rebels-promised-France-35-oil-20110901url)). How does the Libyan revolution in any way benefit the working class, when all it has done is sell the country's assets to foreign companies and has led to a state of turmoil and dissaray throughout the nation since the fall of Gaddafi, especially in Benghazi? Unsurprisingly, I never hear of the shootings and bombings that occur in Libya from Western sources. The situation in Libya is much worse than it was under Gaddafi, with armed gangs running amok and looting and pillaging homes. This is more than likely going to be what happens in Syria; a false western backed puppet government will replace the old regime and sell all of Syria's most valuable assets to foreign companies that will just exploit the working class of the nation for their profit, like bourgeoisie have done countless times before. The fact that around 60% of the rebels are foreign fighters (Source (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pro-rebel-source-t174915/index.htmlurl)) only helps prove the point that the 'revolution' in Syria is only a revolution for the bourgeoisie who plan on exploiting the nation under the guise of 'Democracy'.

I am against Assad and his regime, but I am also strongly against Western imperialism; we should stand against both. However, I personally think that in the short-term it is in the best interest of the working class to not let the fruits of their labour be taken away from them by the war mongering bourgeoisie.

[Sasha]

The situation in Syria is just another example of Western Imperialism trying to weaken the influence of multiple Arabic countries in the Middle East. Libya is the other example of this.

like that "arab" country Iran i presume :rolleyes:


The problem facing any of our comrades that are in favour of the insurgency in Syria right now is the fact that western styled democracy so far in these regions has been a disaster ever since attempts were made to implement this, and western democracy (As most of us will already know) has only served to promote the interest of western bourgeois in the region. which is for some reason infinite worse than the interests of the local or regional bourgeois? capital is capital...
and really? western styled democracy in the region has proven disastrous? proletarian life in lebanon (post civilwar), turkey or israel (obviously excluding the occupation) is exactly how worse than under the brutal jackboot of the mukhabarat in the arab dictatorships or under the ayatollahs in Iran?


An example of this is Libya, where the National Transitional Council gave the French control of over 35% of Libya's crude oil (Source (http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-rebels-promised-France-35-oil-20110901url)).wow, thats schocking! you know how much of the oil-went abroad to the EU under gadaffi? 85% (this is excluding to what went to china, russia etc). you know how much of the oil industry was nationalised under gadaffi AT ITS PEAK (this is before the lifting of the sanctions when Gaddafi rapidly started to reprivatise a lot of the industries) 51%. you do the math. you know how much of the crude oil profits gadaffi invested in the EU stockmarkets etc while the people in the benghazi region where starving at times? 120 billion in usefull stuff like a 7.5% share in italian football club juventus so he could buy a position there for his sub-par performing son who wanted to become a pro-player. Gadaffi liked making fat wads of cash of selling of libya's crude oil abroad so much that despite its huge oil riches libya needed to import 65% of its gasoline (!)


The situation in Libya is much worse than it was under Gaddafi, with armed gangs running amok and looting and pillaging homes. worse than under gaddafi? a self declared 3th positionist (thats fascist newspeak for fascism) when the mukhabarat where disapearing people left and right, trade unions where banned, people got strung up on lampposts and famously the whole benghazi football stadium and the surrounding proletarian neighborhood (!) got flattened by bulldozers because the benghazi team had the audacity to win the championship over the tripoli team gaddafi jr was playing for?
and all this while the gadaffi sons where playing the pimp at Cannes throwing lavish jetset parties with the spoils of their oil plunder, paying western music stars millions to perform a few songs...

just youtube "gaddafi cannes", anti-imp distribution of the wealth in progress

no wonder the dude got lynched when they found him in that sewer.....

[Karabin]

which is for some reason infinite worse than the interests of the local or regional bourgeois? capital is capital...
and really? western styled democracy in the region has proven disastrous? proletarian life in lebanon (post civilwar), turkey or israel (obviously excluding the occupation) is exactly how worse than under the brutal jackboot of the mukhabarat in the arab dictatorships or under the ayatollahs in Iran?

I assumed somebody would bring up the point of foreign bourgeoisie being the same as local bourgeoisie. While I agree that it is true that 'capital is capital' and that the bourgeoisie, both from ones own country and from other ones, are equally as detrimental to the interests of the working class. However, there is no benefit from having more bourgeoisie being brought into the country and to continue the exploitation, especially since foreigners would care less that the native people of these countries are being exploited than they would if they were their own people.

Also, good point you raise about Lebanon/Turkey/Israel. I haven't thought about that. I was thinking more along the lines of Iraq & Afghanistan, but that is a valid point.


wow, thats schocking! you know how much of the oil-went abroad to the EU under gadaffi? 85% (this is excluding to what went to china, russia etc). you know how much of the oil industry was nationalised under gadaffi AT ITS PEAK (this is before the lifting of the sanctions when Gaddafi rapidly started to reprivatise a lot of the industries) 51%. you do the math. you know how much of the crude oil profits gadaffi invested in the EU stockmarkets etc while the people in the benghazi region where starving at times? 120 billion in usefull stuff like a 7.5% share in italian football club juventus so he could buy a position there for his sub-par performing son who wanted to become a pro-player. Gadaffi liked making fat wads of cash of selling of libya's crude oil abroad so much that despite its huge oil riches libya needed to import 65% of its gasoline (!)

Well, firstly there is a difference between exporting oil and letting it come under control by foreign corporations. I am not denying that considerable portions of Libya's oil industry was under foreign control, but Gaddafi was also in support of nationalizing all of Libya's oil in 2009: “The Administration has failed and the state’s economy has failed. Enough is enough. The solution is for the Libyan people to directly receive oil revenues and decide what to do with them" (2009, Source (http://www.infowars.com/in-2009-gaddafi-proposed-nationalizing-libyas-oil/url)). Yes, this is hogwash and I strongly doubt Gaddafi had any intent on letting the 'Libyan people directly receive oil revenues', but I feel that having the oil industry in the hands of the state would be better than letting the industry be controlled by foreign corporations who's main goal is to create as much of a profit as possible. But as was mentioned before, local bourgeoisie and foreign bourgeoisie are all the same evil.

Also, would it be possible for you to provide a source/sources for those statistics? I'm not doubting the validity of your statements, but I'd be curious to read up a bit more on the things you mentioned.


worse than under gaddafi? a self declared 3th positionist (thats fascist newspeak for fascism) when the mukhabarat where disapearing people left and right, trade unions where banned, people got strung up on lampposts and famously the whole benghazi football stadium and the surrounding proletarian neighborhood (!) got flattened by bulldozers because the benghazi team had the audacity to win the championship over the tripoli team gaddafi jr was playing for?
and all this while the gadaffi sons where playing the pimp at Cannes throwing lavish jetset parties with the spoils of their oil plunder, paying western music stars millions to perform a few songs...

I'm not saying that Gaddafi wasn't a tyrannical ruler, but the current situation in Libya is very tense. I remember hearing a couple of weeks ago that a few officials in the government got shot up by a bunch of gang members on their way home from work. Everyone has guns, and rioting and looting is rampant. Even the FBI isn't going to go to Libya to investigate the deaths of a bunch of Americans until it has cooled down (Source (http://www.examiner.com/article/situation-libya-too-dangerous-for-fbiurl)). Of course, a country just out of a civil war is going to have its problems, and it is still too early to judge whether the TNC is going to be a sham or not.

[Sasha]

I assumed somebody would bring up the point of foreign bourgeoisie being the same as local bourgeoisie. While I agree that it is true that 'capital is capital' and that the bourgeoisie, both from ones own country and from other ones, are equally as detrimental to the interests of the working class. However, there is no benefit from having more bourgeoisie being brought into the country and to continue the exploitation, especially since foreigners would care less that the native people of these countries are being exploited than they would if they were their own people.

on the other hand one could argue that the liberal-"democratic" bourgeoisie (even when coming from the west into the rest of the world) seem now a days more prone to buckle to public pressure to exploit "with a kind face" because the system is organized so that their factions (be it political or business) can be more easily traded in at any moment. Apple will quicker reform conditions in their factories in china than the chinese government would, while still very instable i believe the "democratic" system in lebanon defuses a lot of the political tensions and while we all should agree the invasion of iraq was horific and wrong and a crime where bush and co should hang for it is still its a fact Sadam killed more iraqi civilians in the less than two years of the al-anfal genocide campaing than the total ammount of people (civs, troops, insurgents) killed by al sides in the 9 years since the iraq invasion (note that thats based on the iraq body count project numbers that include also the post invasion criminal violence that make up 36% of all deaths in the count).



Also, would it be possible for you to provide a source/sources for those statistics? I'm not doubting the validity of your statements, but I'd be curious to read up a bit more on the things you mentioned.

http://wiki.openoil.net/index.php?title=Libya%27s_Oil_Industry_Under_Gadda fi
http://oil-price.net/en/articles/gaddafi-legacy-of-libya-oil-deals.php

(yes those sources are biased but i have seen the same numbers from non-partisan sources before, i just cant find them at this moment from my mobile so some top results giving the same statistics from a google search for "libyan oil industry under gaddafi" is all i can give you at the moment)


Of course, a country just out of a civil war is going to have its problems, and it is still too early to judge whether the TNC is going to be a sham or not.

oh no, the TNC is definitely a sham we can judge that already for sure, i'm an revolutionary leftist, "hang the new leaders with the entrails of the old ones" is a saying very dear to me.
it just baffles me so see here again and again supposedly leftists who demand we "stand firmly with anti-imperialist leaders against the imperialists, the religious fanatics and the racist thugs!" while all i see is popular (but in their political aims misguided) uprisings of mostly proletarians against the local, and quite frankly brutal and anti-leftist, bourgeoisie that are being half arsed seized upon by some regional players and the west to keep or gain some influence.
do not forget that several of the lybian NTC leaders where not so long ago being tortured daily in joint operations of gadaffi's security forces and the CIA (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/03/us-libya-usa-cia-idUSTRE78213Y20110903), that most in the israel leadership still very much want that "brave anti-zionist resister" Assad to remain in place (http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000766468&fid=4111).
which leaves the question of the make up of these uprisings, and yes, the anti-imps are not wrong when they say there are parts (how big is still very much disputed) that consist of reactionary islamist movements and racist bands of thugs and that the regimes enjoy the support of the secular and "enlightened" parts of society but i feel one than still has to raise a few very important points;
A. its not that these regimes where strangers to employing reactionary islamist movements and racists bands of thugs themselves, just look at the support of the Assads for hizbullah or the behavior of the various mukhabarats and shabiha and bisija in libya, syria and iran. Why do some some of the same people who cheered the overthrow of the egyptian regime suddenly oppose when it happens to assad or gaddafi, is some lip service to "anti-imperialism" really all that it takes?
B. a sad fact is that the poor proletariat (esp in repressed situations) are more prone to racism and religion than the well off middle and upperclass that lean more towards secularism and humanism. now i despise racism and religious reaction as much as the next here but i still wonder why no one asks why its the poor rising up and most of the middle and upper classes standing firmly behind these "anti-imperialists", isnt it just a fact that this is far more a class conflict than a religious or an (anti-)imperialist one?
i rather have some understanding or even mild sympathy towards the proletariat taking a stand aganst the bourgeoisie than stand firmly behind said bourgeois capitalists out of some bankrupt anti-imp analysis and lose all chances we would ever have to influence these uprisings or maybe even dominate the next ones.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Psycho, I understand your criticisms but what I'm unsure of is your actual stance on matter of foreign intervention.

Do you advocate western intervention into political affairs? You always criticize the anti-imps on Revleft, which is fair enough, but do you think that intervention is 'better' than supporting so-called anti-imperialist countries?

I'm asking because I think that to take either side in these issues is contrary to the interests of the working class and basically amounts to the old 'lesser of two evils' argument which, to me, appears to be the basis of hard line anti-imp politics itself.

[Sasha]

I think these uprisings are a genuine proletarian uprising for (a very limited idea of) freedom and (economic) justice and support them as such.
I in general oppose al foreign influence in these affairs, that said i UNDERSTAND (not support, understand) that when faced with mass murder and even (the threat of) genocide these people take all the support they can get and I'm not going to fault them for it, also, considering what gaddafi probably would have done in benghazi and what the assads did before in homs and so probably would do again.... if I'm honest I think I don't really mourn a few soldiers who decided to remain regime loyal and help put down a popular and in origin non- violent uprising getting on the wrong side of a "no fly zone", ofcourse only a world wide revolution is the only real answer but when the different factions of capital decide to duke it out with all their firepower I guess I rather prefer the faction that takes some care not to hit civilians instead of the faction for who they are the prime target, even when its ofcourse for completly ulterior and selfish motives . Again, i dont support intervention of any kind but heck I can still oppose the Iraqi wars and understand at the same time that the interbellum Iraqi no fly zones probably saved thousands from genocide, what my opinion further on it was is rather insignificant. Politically I think Hitler should have been defeated by the people, but no matter how much i hate stalin im rather grateful he liberated my family from the death camps. Even when stalin wouldn't give a toss about the jews himself in hopeless situations there is such a thing as the lesser evil. But that also doesn't change one bit to the fact i completly support those same family members leaving the CPN in protest after the hungary invasion only a few years later. Sometimes the shit that happens is just to big for us to be any meaningfull factor in it and all talk abou taking sides is rather pointless or even vulgar, other times we have to take a stand, even no matter how meaningless it is just not become complicit.
Anyways, back to issue more at hand, regardless of all the strawmen raised against me I condemned western (or in these cases emirate) intervention a whole lot more than the anti-imps here condemned the foreign pro-regime interventions (which is never, they rather cheer it is my experience)). Let's not forget that russia and China supplied weapons to one side of the conflicts way before qatar or turkey did, and the boots of the Iranian revolutionairy guard where long on syrian ground providing the assad troops with training and snipers before Iraqi insurgency veterans came to teach the FSA how to build bombs, blackwater private contracters are (and rightly so) a problem in iraq but russian or serbian pilots flying helicopters in libya was just anti-imperialist solidarity... its disgusting really...

Very long story short; do I oppose foreign bourgeois intervention in Syria? Yes, from all sides. will I oppose an escalation from the anti-assad sides intervention? yes, it will have to get a lot worse before i don't. Will I take to the streets about it? no. Will I if Israel provokes a war with iran, yes absolutely, I would then probably even join some serious direct actions. Will I do the same if the US eventually come to blows with Iran the next time they brutally put down an internal uprising? Back to no again....

[Sasha]

Isn't the Syrian Communist party in the same coalition as the Baathist party?

I generally support the state against movements of little importance as the Syrian civil war. There is a fine line between being a Partisan and an Insurgent. For the Syrian government, I'd say they deserve to be ousted and replaced by a workers' party, but that's not a realistic stance.

It also seems the world is maneuvering for another Imperialist war, and since such a thing is occurring, it is best to support stability over opportunism.

And (until recently) the Syrian national-socialist party... I guess "stability" could be one word for it...