Libya/Syria along with Palestine in the global anti-imperialist struggle [Archive]

Crux

21st November 2012, 16:36

I'm fully prepared for the negative (pseudo-religious) responses I'm going to get from Trots and their anti-communist allies on this topic, but I'm prepared to be an intellectual martyr on the issue, just like on so many others.
An intellectual martyr you are. Because you've truly sacrificed your intellect.

Was on a demonstration recently against the current genocide happening in Gaza. That is all well and good, but every time I handed the megaphone to a friend and comrade of mine to put forward the correct position on Syria (inexorably linked, of course, to the anti-imperialist struggle in Gaza), we got a chorus of "no no no no" from the Trots, and even outright abuse.
Do tell what your "correct position" is. We're all thrilled to hear it.

As the leader of the movement opposing American and European imperialism in the country, Assad must be explicitly supported in the burgeoning conflict in Syria. There is no other way to actively oppose imperialsim; taking a bullshit third position (a la 'Neither Washington nor Moscow') is not acceptable. The same can be said for Libya- despite the fact that Gaddafi, who was largely progressive, could be supported on his own merits, not just as an anti-imperialist.
So you honestly believe Assad was and will be an anti-imperialist force? Do expand on that.
Well, the CIA publicly dismayed at the loss of the Libyan secret service as a loyal ally in the "War on Terror". Do I need to say more? I don't know what game you're playing but it doesn't look much like anti-imperialism to me.

Understanding the fact that Assad's father disgracefully strategised with the USA against Palestine has no bearing upon the fact that, in the current global anti-imperialist struggle, Syria and Palestine are on the same side.
Thanks for coming clean on that at least. But Assad junior not only have played a dubious role towards palestine, like most arab states, but also brutally sold out his own people by slashing and burning the previously almost 100% state owned economy selling it out to the highest bidder. This is why he still has the support of Syrian bourgeoisie and this is also playing no small part in why the uprising started in the first place. That the gulfstates are meddling in this is true and, like the regime, are increasingly pushing for the conflict to take on sectarian elements. So the conflict is complex, but you hardly bring any clarity.

I'm just testing the water and seeing how many moronic Trots and their anti-commnunist allies will argue pseudo-religiously on this.
Oh the irony. So you mean you are, to use another nautical term, trolling for a particular kind of response?

soso17

21st November 2012, 16:38

I'm fully prepared for the negative (pseudo-religious) responses I'm going to get from Trots and their anti-communist allies on this topic, but I'm prepared to be an intellectual martyr on the issue, just like on so many others.

Was on a demonstration recently against the current genocide happening in Gaza. That is all well and good, but every time I handed the megaphone to a friend and comrade of mine to put forward the correct position on Syria (inexorably linked, of course, to the anti-imperialist struggle in Gaza), we got a chorus of "no no no no" from the Trots, and even outright abuse. As the leader of the movement opposing American and European imperialism in the country, Assad must be explicitly supported in the burgeoning conflict in Syria. There is no other way to actively oppose imperialsim; taking a bullshit third position (a la 'Neither Washington nor Moscow') is not acceptable. The same can be said for Libya- despite the fact that Gaddafi, who was largely progressive, could be supported on his own merits, not just as an anti-imperialist.

Understanding the fact that Assad's father disgracefully strategised with the USA against Palestine has no bearing upon the fact that, in the current global anti-imperialist struggle, Syria and Palestine are on the same side.

I'm just testing the water and seeing how many moronic Trots and their anti-commnunist allies will argue pseudo-religiously on this.

I agree, and thanks for standing up and speaking on this. I was at an action for Gaza this week, and it amazed me how many people there held the pro-Palestinian anti-(US and Israel) imperialist stance, but thought that the US needs to intervene against Assad in Syria. Their line of thinking was "we took down Hussein and Ghaddafi, lets get Assad! Help us, America!" I was flabbergasted. Imperialism=imperialism=imperialism. That's a fact. I don't care who it is on the other side; the US has no business interfering in the affairs of others.

It's rather opportunistic to oppose imperialism only when convenient. I find this selective anti-imperialist line disturbing, but not very surprising.

I used the word "imperialism" far too often in this post. Forgive me, I'm on my break at work and don't have time to think of synonyms. ;)

Crux

21st November 2012, 16:44

Ostrinski

21st November 2012, 18:23

A CPGB-ML! I've always wanted to meet one. I've never seen one on this site before.

Oh and congrats on intellectual martyrdom bro.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

21st November 2012, 18:30

Actually fuck both of them. To hell with the Free Syrian army, the Syrian "opposition", and Assad. Support the Kurdish Worker's Party as it is an actual socialist revolutionary force, that both factions have their role in repressing. Sure their leader might be a revisionist but it's important to note that one of their most important allies, the insurgent communist parties of Turkey, and the Revolutionary Party of Kurdistan, are wonderful organisations (despite the focoism of some of the Turkish communists). Also a revisionist socialist party is far more progressive than a Islamic "opposition" and a fascist Assad.

l'EnfermÃ©

21st November 2012, 19:23

So aren't you gonna restrict him? You restricted me for joking about supporting Assad but our friend the proud Marxist-Leninist can openly proclaim his "explicit support" for the Assad hereditary monarchy?

:(

Mass Grave Aesthetics

21st November 2012, 19:24

I agree, and thanks for standing up and speaking on this. I was at an action for Gaza this week, and it amazed me how many people there held the pro-Palestinian anti-(US and Israel) imperialist stance, but thought that the US needs to intervene against Assad in Syria. Their line of thinking was "we took down Hussein and Ghaddafi, lets get Assad! Help us, America!" I was flabbergasted. Imperialism=imperialism=imperialism. That's a fact. I don't care who it is on the other side; the US has no business interfering in the affairs of others.

It's rather opportunistic to oppose imperialism only when convenient. I find this selective anti-imperialist line disturbing, but not very surprising.

I used the word "imperialism" far too often in this post. Forgive me, I'm on my break at work and don't have time to think of synonyms. ;)
They are obviously liberals (or soc. dems) and don´t recognise imperialism as such, only foul deeds of governments and states. However, the support for Assad (or any tin- pot dictator) is not a consistent anti- imperialist stance either but a highly selective one. If the US has no business in interfering in the affairs of sovereign nation- states I think the same goes for Russia, China and the EU. Then again, some seem to believe the US is the only imperialist state in the world. They are usually basing their position on a moralistic and impressionistic view of imperialism instead of a materialistic and economistic one.

Sir Comradical

21st November 2012, 21:29

Sensible post. I agree 100%.

Grenzer

21st November 2012, 22:03

So aren't you gonna restrict him? You restricted me for joking about supporting Assad but out friend the proud Marxist-Leninist can openly proclaim his "explicit support" for the Assad hereditary monarchy?

:(

Well it was decided that Stalinists are to be allowed on the site(which wasn't always the case). They're allowed to get away with a certain amount of reactionary behavior and anti-communist deviancy, which naturally comes with the territory of Stalinism. They get to claim anti-Stalinist persecution if they're pressed on the matter.

Unfortunately this does kind of create a disconnect between some policies, such as the restriction of social-democrats despite the fact that most are more progressive and revolutionary than many Stalinists.

There are some Stalinists here that I can respect, like Questionable and Negative Creep, but the ones that just ramble on about "anti-imperialism" all the time tend to just be cloaking their reactionary tendencies.

Os Cangaceiros

21st November 2012, 22:05

I'm prepared to be an intellectual martyr on the issue, just like on so many others.

Oh you brave soul! :crying:

Sasha

21st November 2012, 22:37

Let us play around with him for a bit, willing martyrs always get themselves banned soon enough...

hetz

21st November 2012, 23:28

So what exactly is the position of these Trots?

Let's Get Free

21st November 2012, 23:35

I think the Syrian people, who has shown unprecedented courage and determination in the first few months of the revolution in defying Assad's regime despite all its brutality, is really exhausted now. 19 long months of fierce repression and lately of hunger, widespread scarcity and continuous bombardment by the regime's army, is weakening its spirit.

hetz

21st November 2012, 23:40

I think the Syrian people, who has shown unprecedented courage and determination in the first few months of the popular struggle in defying terrorists and imperialist lackeys despite all their brutalities, is really exhausted now. 19 long months of fierce repression by the terrorists and lately of hunger, widespread scarcity caused by looting and sabotage and continuous harassment by jihadist militias supported by Turkey and others, is weakening its spirit.

cynicles

21st November 2012, 23:59

The situation in Syria is exactly why the left in Egypt and other places needs to grow stronger so it can strangle the Ikwan and Salafists in their Saudi/Qatari cradles and start changing the game in a positive direction.

Flying Purple People Eater

22nd November 2012, 05:15

Guys. I just had a thought.

The USA is fighting against Islamist imperialism, isn't it?

Let's support America guys!

hetz

22nd November 2012, 12:00

The USA is fighting against Islamist imperialism, isn't it?
No, America isn't fighting Islamism, on the contrary. And there's no such thing as "Islamist imperialism".

Fruit of Ulysses

22nd November 2012, 16:26

Bashar Al Assad is an intelligent and loyal servant of the Arab people, a breath of fresh air and leading anti-imperialist/anti-zionist fighter of global importance. The Ba'athists of Syria are a genuine progressive force who work to better the conditions of women,youth and national minorities. My friends and family in Syria support him 100 percent, the so-called rebels are foreign financed reactionaries who do not represent the will of the people, like it or not Assad does and therefore support is vital to promote democracy and and work against imperialism.

http://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/

http://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/

Fruit of Ulysses

22nd November 2012, 16:29

why do you guys buy into the western media bullshit?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd November 2012, 16:46

why do you guys buy into the western media bullshit?

Syrian state propaganda is no more reliable than CNN. At least CNN doesn't receive direct marching orders from its government. Don't get me wrong, CNN is a terrible source, but so are these supposedly un-biased pro-Assad sources.

Assad is a reactionary douche. So many of the rebels are even more reactionary, that doesn't change the fact that Assad has helped to privatize the economy, seems to favor people from certain ethnic groups/tribes over others, and has continued repression towards any sector of society which opposes Baathism. If you really think Baathism is a progressive ideology after 50 years of violent anti-leftism and racism in Iraq and Syria alike, you're not defining "progressive" properly.

Ocean Seal

22nd November 2012, 17:18

They're allowed to get away with a certain amount of reactionary behavior and anti-communist deviancy, which naturally comes with the territory of Stalinism.

Unfortunately this does kind of create a disconnect between some policies, such as the restriction of social-democrats despite the fact that most are more progressive and revolutionary than many Stalinists.

Oh fuck off. Yeah these CPGBML guys defend any weirdo in the third world, but that doesn't make them complicit to capitalism like the social democrats. Their bizarre support for third world despots doesn't actually change anything for people in the third world. Neither does not supporting them. We have to accept that the development of the third world needs to occur before our discussions on the subject are of any relevance. We support any uprising of workers in Libya, Syria, and so on, and any militant actions that they take, but there is no reason to believe that we are in a superior position by simply claiming that we don't support these dictators. The only thing we can change as Westerners is to stand against intervention. And what about social democrats supporting brown unions, condemning violent protest, promoting austerity measures, and leading wars in the Middle East.

Calm down and think a bit, you aren't going to lose the respect of your Orthodox Marxist comrades, if you don't agree with the party line on revleft.

Althusser

22nd November 2012, 17:34

Syrian state propaganda is no more reliable than CNN. At least CNN doesn't receive direct marching orders from its government.

To be fair, it doesn't really need to. The station is owned by people who would gain from the overthrow of an anti-imperialist government in the middle east.

Look at the media in Venezuela when Chavez was elected the first time. The wealthy elite owned the media, and Chavez was going to put in place some social democratic policies, so they called him "Hitler" and "the devil" to try to persuade the people of Venezuela (even the poor) to march against him.

And of course the leaders of the 2002 coup were funded by the United States.

Also, the Syria situation is complicated, obviously you can't be apathetic about it, but "which side to take" so to speak is difficult. If all the people of Syria would get is Islamic rape gangs and a Cinnabon (like Lybia) what is there to rally behind?

marxleninstalinmao

22nd November 2012, 17:49

Why would any Communist support such a brutal, reactionary local despot like Assad?

Because, firstly, the vast majority of what you read about him and his 'regime' (only put in quotation marks due to the obviously loaded nature of the word every time anyone uses it) is completely invented and doesn't reflect real life.

Secondly, the first step towards revolution is national liberation; if there was no threat of imperialism in the region then it would be safe to take what is, currently, a nonsensical third position to support a nonexistent workers' uprising, but while imperialism still exists, the only thing someone who actually cares about socialism/communism can do is support those actually fighting imperialism in the real world.

marxleninstalinmao

22nd November 2012, 17:53

An intellectual martyr you are. Because you've truly sacrificed your intellect.

Do tell what your "correct position" is. We're all thrilled to hear it.

So you honestly believe Assad was and will be an anti-imperialist force? Do expand on that.
Well, the CIA publicly dismayed at the loss of the Libyan secret service as a loyal ally in the "War on Terror". Do I need to say more? I don't know what game you're playing but it doesn't look much like anti-imperialism to me.

Thanks for coming clean on that at least. But Assad junior not only have played a dubious role towards palestine, like most arab states, but also brutally sold out his own people by slashing and burning the previously almost 100% state owned economy selling it out to the highest bidder. This is why he still has the support of Syrian bourgeoisie and this is also playing no small part in why the uprising started in the first place. That the gulfstates are meddling in this is true and, like the regime, are increasingly pushing for the conflict to take on sectarian elements. So the conflict is complex, but you hardly bring any clarity.

Oh the irony. So you mean you are, to use another nautical term, trolling for a particular kind of response?

Not trolling for a response, simply expecting a particular one. And I have been proven correct.

The correct position on Syria will be very similar to the correct position on Iran when America launches it's inevitable war there. And that is to not take a third position (a la 'Neither Washington nor Moscow'), it is to support those in the country who are actually leading the fight against imperialism; currently in Syria, that is Bashar al Assad. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It would be lovely if those of us in the real world could say 'Lets oppose the current leadership and support a workers' uprising who would turn the place into a socialist state right away, but there is no genuine workers' uprising who want to achieve national liberation and self-determination. After all, the current 'revolution' (read: counter revolution) is being funded by the CIA.

I agree, and thanks for standing up and speaking on this. I was at an action for Gaza this week, and it amazed me how many people there held the pro-Palestinian anti-(US and Israel) imperialist stance, but thought that the US needs to intervene against Assad in Syria. Their line of thinking was "we took down Hussein and Ghaddafi, lets get Assad! Help us, America!" I was flabbergasted. Imperialism=imperialism=imperialism. That's a fact. I don't care who it is on the other side; the US has no business interfering in the affairs of others.

It's rather opportunistic to oppose imperialism only when convenient. I find this selective anti-imperialist line disturbing, but not very surprising.

I used the word "imperialism" far too often in this post. Forgive me, I'm on my break at work and don't have time to think of synonyms. ;)
Thankyou for your useful and intelligent reply. It's amazing how many people who correctly rubbish sources who spout pro-Israeli rubbish (or pro US rubbish for that matter) champion those same sources when they trash Gaddaffi, Assad etc.

A CPGB-ML! I've always wanted to meet one. I've never seen one on this site before.

Oh and congrats on intellectual martyrdom bro.

We do exist ;)

Let us play around with him for a bit, willing martyrs always get themselves banned soon enough...

It doesn't sound like you're a very good admin if you are a) taking a specific side within a movement (cue the 'we're not in the same movement' drivel) and b) implying that you're going to try and goad someone into being banned from the site....

Please note that, at the time of writing, there are four people who have written in support of what I said and five against, so I'm not some random guy who disagrees with everyone on the site.

Crux

22nd November 2012, 18:49

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd November 2012, 19:11

To be fair, it doesn't really need to. The station is owned by people who would gain from the overthrow of an anti-imperialist government in the middle east.

Look at the media in Venezuela when Chavez was elected the first time. The wealthy elite owned the media, and Chavez was going to put in place some social democratic policies, so they called him "Hitler" and "the devil" to try to persuade the people of Venezuela (even the poor) to march against him.

And of course the leaders of the 2002 coup were funded by the United States.

I don't have any illusions about private media. I'm just saying state schills should be viewed at best with a heavy dose of skepticism, and that's the case for states with an "agreeable" ideology, not to mention those with reactionary ideologies like the Syrian ruling party.

Also, the Syria situation is complicated, obviously you can't be apathetic about it, but "which side to take" so to speak is difficult. If all the people of Syria would get is Islamic rape gangs and a Cinnabon (like Lybia) what is there to rally behind?I think all the talk of taking sides as if it's a serious decision is incredibly vain, not to mention fairly idealist. Who cares what a bunch of internet lefties think? Certainly not the Baathists, certainly not the FSA, and I doubt many Syrian civilians would care much either. It won't have any impact on the direction of the conflict whatsoever. The only good position is speaking openly in solidarity with the victims of violence from both sides ... at least then we show sympathy with the suffering of actual people.

Thirsty Crow

22nd November 2012, 19:17

Crux

22nd November 2012, 22:53

Not trolling for a response, simply expecting a particular one. And I have been proven correct.

The correct position on Syria will be very similar to the correct position on Iran when America launches it's inevitable war there. And that is to not take a third position (a la 'Neither Washington nor Moscow'), it is to support those in the country who are actually leading the fight against imperialism; currently in Syria, that is Bashar al Assad. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It would be lovely if those of us in the real world could say 'Lets oppose the current leadership and support a workers' uprising who would turn the place into a socialist state right away, but there is no genuine workers' uprising who want to achieve national liberation and self-determination. After all, the current 'revolution' (read: counter revolution) is being funded by the CIA.
Yes you want a united front with Ahmadinjead as well? Good, good tell that to the worker's and the marxists in Iran and see how they react. Not even they iranian ML's will back you up. They are, after all, not suicidal. But you can of course, from the relative comfort of the UK adopt a different position.

So you're basically telling us you have no class analysis at all? Instead you resort to that classical ploy of the establishment, the "outside agitator". But see that's not how revolts work, that's not how it started, regardless of CIA and gulf state meddling at present.
Why pray tell are you then not backing the Con-Dem's or at least Labour (but perhaps you do) because...hey I see no worker's uprising in the UK either.
Then again it is this logic that leads the CPUSA to basically be an appendage of the Democrats. Different countries, I admit, and different sort of betrayals.

Grenzer

22nd November 2012, 23:48

Oh fuck off. Yeah these CPGBML guys defend any weirdo in the third world, but that doesn't make them complicit to capitalism like the social democrats. Their bizarre support for third world despots doesn't actually change anything for people in the third world. Neither does not supporting them. We have to accept that the development of the third world needs to occur before our discussions on the subject are of any relevance. We support any uprising of workers in Libya, Syria, and so on, and any militant actions that they take, but there is no reason to believe that we are in a superior position by simply claiming that we don't support these dictators. The only thing we can change as Westerners is to stand against intervention. And what about social democrats supporting brown unions, condemning violent protest, promoting austerity measures, and leading wars in the Middle East.

Get your head out of your ass. Haven't you heard of the theory of Permanent Revolution before?

No one has to "accept" the idea that we should be sitting around willing letting the capitalists stay in power in underdeveloped countries. This is the worst sort of Menshevism and capitalist apologetics imaginable, and it's precisely the logic that was used by those ostensible revolutionaries who opposed the Russian Revolution.

Funny how "Pan-leftism" always seems to translate into "Stalinist and anti-communist apologetics" in practice. Stalinism has done an irrevocable amount of damage to the communist movement, far more than any social-democrat could ever dream of doing. At least they spare of the indignity of pretending to be against capitalism in most cases.

Ostrinski

23rd November 2012, 00:00

Calm down and think a bit, you aren't going to lose the respect of your Orthodox Marxist comrades, if you don't agree with the party line on revleft.What?

Let's Get Free

23rd November 2012, 00:07

Look at the media in Venezuela when Chavez was elected the first time. The wealthy elite owned the media, and Chavez was going to put in place some social democratic policies, so they called him "Hitler" and "the devil" to try to persuade the people of Venezuela (even the poor) to march against him.

And of course the leaders of the 2002 coup were funded by the United States.

Well, in the case of Chavez, in was the mobilization of millions of Venezuelans that put him back into power. Also, Chavez is and never was a dictator, as Assad is.

Fruit of Ulysses

23rd November 2012, 07:10

Well, in the case of Chavez, in was the mobilization of millions of Venezuelans that put him back into power. Also, Chavez is and never was a dictator, as Assad is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/10/hugo-chavez-election-press-conference

just one of many instances in which Chavez voices the solidarity of the Bolivarian Revolution with the Jamahiriya and Assad

Crux

23rd November 2012, 13:57

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/10/hugo-chavez-election-press-conference

just one of many instances in which Chavez voices the solidarity of the Bolivarian Revolution with the Jamahiriya and Assad
Yes foreign-policy contacts leave much to be desired, like his ties to the capitalist dictatorship in china or the butcherers in Sri Lanka.
freepalestine: Please. Did you even read what I said? Furthermore the Assad regime is increasingly dependent on Alawaite secterian groups and the Ba'ath parrty structures are cracking from the inside. Of course Assad probably still has some cross-communal support among the bourgeosie and why shouldn't he? He handed them the syrian state sector on a silver platter with the predictable effects of neoliberalism for syrian worker's and poor.

GoddessCleoLover

23rd November 2012, 16:47

Assad's forces have shed too much blood for me to believe that he has any broad popular support. I agree with Majakovshij that Assad has little left beside his fellow Alawites, and that base may erode as Alawites come to realize that going down with a sinking ship leads to death.

Crux

24th November 2012, 05:35

freepalestine; You gave me negrep, yet the irony of it all is, my source are inside of syria. so take a moment to think about that before you accuse me of taking my views from "the mainstream media".

Crux

24th November 2012, 16:46

Then allow me to blow your mind: I do not support the FSA (although it's dubious if it could be called one single coherent organization).

LiberationTheologist

25th November 2012, 07:22

is it in the syrian govts intersts to use sectarianism..?
they arent sectarian - for all can be said, syrias ba'ath are ideologically secularist
the wars now islamists/salfists (etc) againstsyrians secularists/minoritys/govt..
the only side who are sectarian ..are the wahabist (http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/something-curious-happening-sunni-islam)fsa

whats privatising the economy got to with the fact that the revolutionarys are 98% religiously motivated..

.
fsaalqaedareply to snc meeting in qatar weekago
CC english subtitles
K-del0nLVXI

IT'S NOT A REVOLUTION...

This is not understood by misinformed romanticists of "the people" rising up against the dictator. They don't understand the war in Sryia is mostly a religious sectarian uprising being armed from outside.

The guns and arms for the religious sectarians have been supplied first and foremost by theh USA which manufactures the weapons and the religious sectarians in Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and likely France. I demand to know where the weapons came from and those who supplied them should be arrested, convicted and hung for the incitation of violence in Syria.

Look at the massive show of support the Syrian government has, the marches just like in Libya were huge. And keep in mind Syria is only 22 million people and Libya is only 6 million people! Look at the massive marches and support Gaddaffi had in Libya. The social welfare given to the people of Libya was staggering. I don't doubt the system in Syria is at least decent if not very good (or it was until it imperialists shipped arms to religious nuts and naive democracy idiots). Yet if you give arms away by the thousands and bomb a country for 7 months and siege it for years of course you can overthrow a very popular government.

Most reactionary English speakers are a fed a diet of steady propaganda and don't have a clue how the USA, Britian and other assorted filthy imperialist dogs like Saudi Arabaia, France and Germany overthrow countries.

These are not even the largest marches, they are small compared to the larger ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UEMb4m3eU8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q35bsve3-oE&feature=related

hatzel

25th November 2012, 11:24

I demand to know where the weapons came from and those who supplied them should be arrested, convicted and hung for the incitation of violence in Syria.

Well that definitely sounds like a perfectly decent thing to say...

(And I'm not talking about the fact that 'hang' goes to 'hanged' not 'hung.'

marxleninstalinmao

25th November 2012, 19:53

Yes you want a united front with Ahmadinjead as well? Good, good tell that to the worker's and the marxists in Iran and see how they react. Not even they iranian ML's will back you up. They are, after all, not suicidal. But you can of course, from the relative comfort of the UK adopt a different position.

So you're basically telling us you have no class analysis at all? Instead you resort to that classical ploy of the establishment, the "outside agitator". But see that's not how revolts work, that's not how it started, regardless of CIA and gulf state meddling at present.
Why pray tell are you then not backing the Con-Dem's or at least Labour (but perhaps you do) because...hey I see no worker's uprising in the UK either.
Then again it is this logic that leads the CPUSA to basically be an appendage of the Democrats. Different countries, I admit, and different sort of betrayals.

It's really quite funny that you can end with a couple of things I completely agree with (accusing me of a completely different position than the one I actually hold in the process). I do not at all support Labour or the Con-Dems (in fact, in the UK, it is the Trotskyist parties who tend to argue to vote Labour to keep the Tories out, as if one isn't simply a different face of the ruling class, the 3rd XI of the ruling class if you will). And of course the CPUSA is not at all Communist, it is Social-Democratic, that is obvious; I do not support that either.

I'm not arguing for a 'Popular Front' with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as that suggests some kind of permanent (or near permanent) alliance; I am simply stating that one must support those actually fighting imperialism in real life instead of trying to hold the philosophical moral high ground by taking a third position that doesn't really exist, as this doesn't benefit anyone, least of all those who are battling imperialism on a daily basis.

marxleninstalinmao

25th November 2012, 19:56

Get your head out of your ass. Haven't you heard of the theory of Permanent Revolution before?

No one has to "accept" the idea that we should be sitting around willing letting the capitalists stay in power in underdeveloped countries. This is the worst sort of Menshevism and capitalist apologetics imaginable, and it's precisely the logic that was used by those ostensible revolutionaries who opposed the Russian Revolution.

Funny how "Pan-leftism" always seems to translate into "Stalinist and anti-communist apologetics" in practice. Stalinism has done an irrevocable amount of damage to the communist movement, far more than any social-democrat could ever dream of doing. At least they spare of the indignity of pretending to be against capitalism in most cases.
You are living within philosophy, but we are living in the real world. A revolution in all countries of the world simultaneously is impossible. It is vital that the countries in the world that are currently victims of imperialism are allowed self-determination and therefore we must support those fighting against this imperialism, freeing them from it and allowing them to reach a stage sufficient for socialist revolution, instead of just trying to jump straight to it.

I'm not going to argue with you about Trotsky's character, as I fear you are too far gone for that and such an attempt would be an exercise in futility.

marxleninstalinmao

25th November 2012, 19:58

Well, in the case of Chavez, in was the mobilization of millions of Venezuelans that put him back into power. Also, Chavez is and never was a dictator, as Assad is.
As this thread also mentions libya (deliberately of course, as these conflicts are interlinked) it would be remiss of me not to tell you, in case you didn't know, that Chavez, who you correctly seem to admire, openly supported Gaddafi. Are you telling me that there is a huge amount of difference between Gaddafi and Assad in the context of global anti-imperialism? If not, why do you trust certain sources on Libya and not trust the same sources on Syria? (or vice versa)

marxleninstalinmao

25th November 2012, 20:00

Yes foreign-policy contacts leave much to be desired, like his ties to the capitalist dictatorship in china or the butcherers in Sri Lanka.
freepalestine: Please. Did you even read what I said? Furthermore the Assad regime is increasingly dependent on Alawaite secterian groups and the Ba'ath parrty structures are cracking from the inside. Of course Assad probably still has some cross-communal support among the bourgeosie and why shouldn't he? He handed them the syrian state sector on a silver platter with the predictable effects of neoliberalism for syrian worker's and poor.

LOL! "Capitalist dictatorship in China". Priceless. What, a capitalist dictatorship within a still largely socialist economy? Please enlighten me with your wonderful sources within China...

Crux

25th November 2012, 20:12

LOL! "Capitalist dictatorship in China". Priceless. What, a capitalist dictatorship within a still largely socialist economy? Please enlighten me with your wonderful sources within China...Funny you should say that...
(http://www.chinaworker.info/) Also the regime imprisons maoists, but again, that's probably not something you'd care about cheering them on from a safe distance in the UK, them of course meaning the regime not the maoists.

Drosophila

25th November 2012, 20:30

Flying Purple People Eater

25th November 2012, 21:06

No, America isn't fighting Islamism, on the contrary. And there's no such thing as "Islamist imperialism".
Sarcasm, comrade.

Flying Purple People Eater

25th November 2012, 21:07

LOL! "Capitalist dictatorship in China". Priceless. What, a capitalist dictatorship within a still largely socialist economy? Please enlighten me with your wonderful sources within China...
Oh god, not another fucking Morning Star nutjob.

Restrict this idiot for supporting one of the largest capitalist superpowers in the world, please.

Let's Get Free

25th November 2012, 21:10

IT'S NOT A REVOLUTION...
A revolution exists independently of whether you understand its objectives. The situation here is a classic revolutionary situation. We have: 1) the emergence of a grassroots counter power (local coordinating committees), 2) forms of political representation that are emerging all of which specifically contest the legitimacy of the regime, 3) the decomposition of the regime, with splits and defections aplenty. And all of this is taking place centrally around the questions of democratic rights. This is a classic democratic revolution. Whether you want to hear that or not.

This is not understood by misinformed romanticists of "the people" rising up against the dictator. They don't understand the war in Sryia is mostly a religious sectarian uprising being armed from outside.
Well, if you look at the origins of the revolt in the mass protests, look at the forms of popular self-organization that took off, look at the continujing scale of the protests and the small business shutdowns, etc, you have to conclude that there is a considerable popular movement here and needs no fueling "from the outside."

Now, there is evidence of sectarian elements - one should anticipate this. There will be polyglot forces, reactionaries, backward layers, people who want to fight but don't do so on the best political basis. And there's no reason to be complacent about it. But there is no evidence that you or anyone else has provided that these are, or are becoming, the *dominant* forces either in the armed groups or in the political groups.

The guns and arms for the religious sectarians have been supplied first and foremost by theh USA which manufactures the weapons and the religious sectarians in Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and likely France. I demand to know where the weapons came from and those who supplied them should be arrested, convicted and hung for the incitation of violence in Syria.

Well, first of all, the Assad regime bears full responsibility for driving the nation into civil war. I really don't see how the revolt could have avoided militarization, considering the governments crackdown on protesters. Second, in Syria the USA and its allies are providing negligible arms - including no heavy weaponry - and have no political influence beyond the TNC-styled SNC, which has little weight inside of Syria itself.

Look at the massive show of support the Syrian government has, the marches just like in Libya were huge. And keep in mind Syria is only 22 million people and Libya is only 6 million people! Look at the massive marches and support Gaddaffi had in Libya. The social welfare given to the people of Libya was staggering. I don't doubt the system in Syria is at least decent if not very good (or it was until it imperialists shipped arms to religious nuts and naive democracy idiots). Yet if you give arms away by the thousands and bomb a country for 7 months and siege it for years of course you can overthrow a very popular government.

So what? While the Syrian regime boasts of thousands at the demonstrations of its supporters its security and military apparatus murders and tortures its opponents. But history does not run out of lessons. Ben Ali bragged of two million members in his own party a few days before fleeing.

Most reactionary English speakers are a fed a diet of steady propaganda and don't have a clue how the USA, Britian and other assorted filthy imperialist dogs like Saudi Arabaia, France and Germany overthrow countries.
So you think this is some sort of imperialist conspiracy? ? Do masses of people really rise up and risk their lives because the CIA said so? Of course not. Are imperialist powers trying to intervene in events to suit themselves? Of course they are. Does that mean we should condemn everyone taking part? Of course not.

Ocean Seal

25th November 2012, 22:43

Get your head out of your ass. Haven't you heard of the theory of Permanent Revolution before?
No it doesn't ring a bell, your intellectual prowess is beyond mine I suppose.

No one has to "accept" the idea that we should be sitting around willing letting the capitalists stay in power in underdeveloped countries. This is the worst sort of Menshevism and capitalist apologetics imaginable, and it's precisely the logic that was used by those ostensible revolutionaries who opposed the Russian Revolution.

You can accept whatever idea you want, but at least read my post before droning on about the same stuff you usually do. I said you, a first world revolutionary, theorist, or whatever, have no effect on what bourgeois leaders stay in power in the third world. For all practical purposes this translates into no dichotomy with what the Stalinists want even the FSRO types. Now you can disagree with the Stalinists as you please, hell even go into tirades about how they are stupid, counter-revolutionary, and treacherous. You can hold onto the dogmas of the 20th century, or you can realize that whether you are in support of a non-existent movement, or some dictator with Brezhnev era rhetoric, you are probably organizing for the same thing. Or you can make a move to the Middle East or wherever and organize for or against the dictator of your choice.

Have fun fighting with imaginary Stalinists and capitalist apologists.

Funny how "Pan-leftism" always seems to translate into "Stalinist and anti-communist apologetics" in practice. Stalinism has done an irrevocable amount of damage to the communist movement, far more than any social-democrat could ever dream of doing. At least they spare of the indignity of pretending to be against capitalism in most cases.
Stop, just stop man. You are making yourself look more pathetic. You aren't even cherry picking from my posts, you are just making shit up. Stalinism is not alone in harming the communist movement, a movement that had lost most of the wind under its wings taken out of it before Stalinist treachary. Anyway, keep resorting to blaming Stalinists, maybe that will get you somewhere. Oh and keep telling them that they aren't against capitalism because of their support for a long dead party opportunist, clearly you understand that the revolutionary politics of every sect will follow to the letter what the intellectual ancestors of that sect did.

GerrardWinstanley

26th November 2012, 00:45

Has any one of the defenders of the Free Syrian Army on here yet come forward to explain just how these armed mercenaries managed to suddenly spring up, as if by magic, with US-manufactured weapons and technology and why these "revolutionaries" would base their military operations on the border of Turkey (NATO's flagship state)?

What of the FSA's links with grotesque al-Qaeda offshoot, the Jabhat al-Nusra, and the fact the FSA lied on their behalf about who was responsible for the bombing of the Al-Ikhbariya TV station?

Is the fact that the FSA's Aleppo factions rejected the coalition agreement at Doha (coordinated by the Gulf states) on the basis that the arrangement wasn't sufficiently theocratic (albeit later agreeing to compromise), not to mention the FSA's pattern of atrocities not at least some cause for alarm?

Sir Comradical

26th November 2012, 09:49

"Let's purify our Levant from the filth of Alawites"

The democratic, secular, progressive, anti-sectarian, socialist rebel movement in Syria (sarcasm).

-AKVBHEFyC0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AKVBHEFyC0)

Devrim

26th November 2012, 10:17

"Let's purify our Levant from the filth of Alawites"

I was watching BBC World at breakfast the other day, and there was this guy from the FSA talking about the Alawites, I can't remember what the exact line was, but I do remember that the translation missed out the word 'dogs' that the speaker used before the word 'Alawite' in the original.

Devrim

GerrardWinstanley

26th November 2012, 14:12

"Liberated" Aleppo
SEQRJfL5oCA

hashem

26th November 2012, 15:11

As the leader of the movement opposing American and European imperialism in the country, Assad must be explicitly supported

I have heard arguments like this before. They say baath regime in Syria, islamist regime in Iran, Kim dynasty in north Korea or former regime of Libya are bad but foreign imperialists are worse, so we should support bad guys against worse guys.

Im not going to discuss who is bad and who is worse, that’s not what determines revolutionary tactics and such questions usually conceal the main question. The question is: which force is capable of standing firm against imperialism and lead countries to a better future?

Is baath party (or to be exact: Asad dynasty) capable of doing so? NO. why? Because its representing exploiters of Syrian people and internationally it guards the interests of foreign imperialists (mainly Russia, China and Iran). Asad dynasty isn’t even able to create a modern bourgeoisie government after decades of ruling. form of government is still monarchy just as it was in medieval ages. Its main force inside the country are mercenaries who are drawn from ranks of lumpens. It cant unite majority of Syrian people who are workers and toilers, on the contrary, it provokes different religions and nations against each other. It doesn’t support movements of proletariat and oppressed people in other countries and proletariat and broad masses of other countries have no reason to stand behind it.

There is no reason to believe baath regime can last in Syria. It will fall sooner or later. Even if it succeed to crush current insurgents, its doomed to destruction because it represents forces which are historically dying (backward sections of bourgeoisie) and its ruling in a way which is historically dead (monarchy).

Besides, even if an ordinary person chooses to support asad what can he/she do? If he/she is going to support his regime as a class, then there is need for organization. But independents organizations and political parties are banned. so he/she has no other choice but to join supporters of baath regime as an individual. he/she should join backward social forces, associations which are organized in a way to serve exploiters, ranks of praisers of Asad who are not allowed to criticize him when he makes a mistake, a mercenary army which is made of lumpen selfsellers who sell themselves to highest price (no matter who pays) and is in no shape to stand against armies of foreign imperialists and their inner servants which are greater in numbers and better equipped.

Supporting Asad can only lead to failure and prevents construction of a true progressive and anti imperialist front.

GerrardWinstanley

26th November 2012, 20:54

I have heard arguments like this before. They say baath regime in Syria, islamist regime in Iran, Kim dynasty in north Korea or former regime of Libya are bad but foreign imperialists are worse, so we should support bad guys against worse guys.You have no idea what you're saying. Imperialists are aggressors who seek exclusive control of the planet's resource's and to profit from the economic ruin of peaceful countries. These states, however much you might not like their governments, are well-advised to take up arms and defend themselves.

I don't know what, in addition to the mounting evidence of arms supplied to the rebels by Israel and NATO powers and the Sunni Islamist hegemony in the FSA, will convince you that the chaos in Syria is a NATO proxy war supported by the Gulf States and Israel, but I would ask you to consider NATO's history. Every coup that NATO has supported has led to economic liberalisation and has replaced the previous system with a pathetic fake "democracy", if not an open theocracy. The former Eastern bloc, former Yugoslavia, the mujahideen counterrevolution in Afghanistan, Libya, the list goes on.

Im not going to discuss who is bad and who is worse, that’s not what determines revolutionary tactics and such questions usually conceal the main question. The question is: which force is capable of standing firm against imperialism and lead countries to a better future?How does the use of arms supplied by Israel and NATO and basing your operations on the border of a NATO country and taking their assistance constitute "standing firm against imperialism"? I suppose when the FSA crush the SAF and unilaterally take power, NATO, Israel and the Saudis will find all their efforts were in vain in the end? Wishful thinking.

Is baath party (or to be exact: Asad dynasty) capable of doing so? NO. why? Because its representing exploiters of Syrian people and internationally it guards the interests of foreign imperialists (mainly Russia, China and Iran).Russia, China and certainly Iran are not imperialists. Russia and China are "emerging" economies, but are by no means set to replace the global North as the world's reigning imperial powers (who stand alone in using war to secure exclusive control of the world's resources). There is certainly a strategic alliance between these countries, which will prove pivotal for the military defeat of imperialism (which socialists should support).

Asad dynasty isn’t even able to create a modern bourgeoisie government after decades of ruling. form of government is still monarchy just as it was in medieval ages. Its main force inside the country are mercenaries who are drawn from ranks of lumpens. It cant unite majority of Syrian people who are workers and toilers, on the contrary, it provokes different religions and nations against each other. It doesn’t support movements of proletariat and oppressed people in other countries and proletariat and broad masses of other countries have no reason to stand behind it.

There is no reason to believe baath regime can last in Syria. It will fall sooner or later. Even if it succeed to crush current insurgents, its doomed to destruction because it represents forces which are historically dying (backward sections of bourgeoisie) and its ruling in a way which is historically dead (monarchy).

Besides, even if an ordinary person chooses to support asad what can he/she do? If he/she is going to support his regime as a class, then there is need for organization. But independents organizations and political parties are banned. so he/she has no other choice but to join supporters of baath regime as an individual. he/she should join backward social forces, associations which are organized in a way to serve exploiters, ranks of praisers of Asad who are not allowed to criticize him when he makes a mistake, a mercenary army which is made of lumpen selfsellers who sell themselves to highest price (no matter who pays) and is in no shape to stand against armies of foreign imperialists and their inner servants which are greater in numbers and better equipped.

Supporting Asad can only lead to failure and prevents construction of a true progressive and anti imperialist front.Gosh, talk about a false dilemma. Have you not stopped to think that the majority of people here sceptical of the insurgency in Syria actually have no truck with Assad's domestic policies. Is it not in fact the FSA partisans here who are falling for the "lesser of two evils" fallacy? That is, supporting armed rebels about which we know very little (except their documented links to al-Qaeda and NATO and the Israeli and American sources of their weapons and intelligence) out of your hatred for Assad and the Syrian state?

Omsk

26th November 2012, 21:39

Russia, China and certainly Iran are not imperialists.

Think about that for a moment.

marxleninstalinmao

26th November 2012, 21:45

Oh god, not another fucking Morning Star nutjob.

Restrict this idiot for supporting one of the largest capitalist superpowers in the world, please.
"Morning Star Nutjob"??? The Morning Star is the paper of a Trotskyist party that certainly doesn't support China. In fact, it is so anti-communist that it frequently contains interviews with Labour party MPs. You need to refresh your understanding of the communist movement in Briitain...

A revolution exists independently of whether you understand its objectives. The situation here is a classic revolutionary situation. We have: 1) the emergence of a grassroots counter power (local coordinating committees), 2) forms of political representation that are emerging all of which specifically contest the legitimacy of the regime, 3) the decomposition of the regime, with splits and defections aplenty. And all of this is taking place centrally around the questions of democratic rights. This is a classic democratic revolution. Whether you want to hear that or not.

Well, if you look at the origins of the revolt in the mass protests, look at the forms of popular self-organization that took off, look at the continujing scale of the protests and the small business shutdowns, etc, you have to conclude that there is a considerable popular movement here and needs no fueling "from the outside."

Now, there is evidence of sectarian elements - one should anticipate this. There will be polyglot forces, reactionaries, backward layers, people who want to fight but don't do so on the best political basis. And there's no reason to be complacent about it. But there is no evidence that you or anyone else has provided that these are, or are becoming, the *dominant* forces either in the armed groups or in the political groups.

Well, first of all, the Assad regime bears full responsibility for driving the nation into civil war. I really don't see how the revolt could have avoided militarization, considering the governments crackdown on protesters. Second, in Syria the USA and its allies are providing negligible arms - including no heavy weaponry - and have no political influence beyond the TNC-styled SNC, which has little weight inside of Syria itself.

So what? While the Syrian regime boasts of thousands at the demonstrations of its supporters its security and military apparatus murders and tortures its opponents. But history does not run out of lessons. Ben Ali bragged of two million members in his own party a few days before fleeing.

So you think this is some sort of imperialist conspiracy? ? Do masses of people really rise up and risk their lives because the CIA said so? Of course not. Are imperialist powers trying to intervene in events to suit themselves? Of course they are. Does that mean we should condemn everyone taking part? Of course not.

You clearly can't recognise a counter-revolution when one is right in front of your nose

I have heard arguments like this before. They say baath regime in Syria, islamist regime in Iran, Kim dynasty in north Korea or former regime of Libya are bad but foreign imperialists are worse, so we should support bad guys against worse guys.

Im not going to discuss who is bad and who is worse, that’s not what determines revolutionary tactics and such questions usually conceal the main question. The question is: which force is capable of standing firm against imperialism and lead countries to a better future?

Is baath party (or to be exact: Asad dynasty) capable of doing so? NO. why? Because its representing exploiters of Syrian people and internationally it guards the interests of foreign imperialists (mainly Russia, China and Iran). Asad dynasty isn’t even able to create a modern bourgeoisie government after decades of ruling. form of government is still monarchy just as it was in medieval ages. Its main force inside the country are mercenaries who are drawn from ranks of lumpens. It cant unite majority of Syrian people who are workers and toilers, on the contrary, it provokes different religions and nations against each other. It doesn’t support movements of proletariat and oppressed people in other countries and proletariat and broad masses of other countries have no reason to stand behind it.

There is no reason to believe baath regime can last in Syria. It will fall sooner or later. Even if it succeed to crush current insurgents, its doomed to destruction because it represents forces which are historically dying (backward sections of bourgeoisie) and its ruling in a way which is historically dead (monarchy).

Besides, even if an ordinary person chooses to support asad what can he/she do? If he/she is going to support his regime as a class, then there is need for organization. But independents organizations and political parties are banned. so he/she has no other choice but to join supporters of baath regime as an individual. he/she should join backward social forces, associations which are organized in a way to serve exploiters, ranks of praisers of Asad who are not allowed to criticize him when he makes a mistake, a mercenary army which is made of lumpen selfsellers who sell themselves to highest price (no matter who pays) and is in no shape to stand against armies of foreign imperialists and their inner servants which are greater in numbers and better equipped.

Supporting Asad can only lead to failure and prevents construction of a true progressive and anti imperialist front.

You have misrepresented my position. I wouldn't for a second claim that Gadaffi or the DPRK are 'bad'; nor would I suggest that you should support them as the lesser of two evils. I would support them on their own merits as socialist/progressive AND as anti-imperialist forces on top of that. Additionally, it is important to understand that the Ba'ath party started off as a socialist party (though of course in Iraq, as the middle-class army general of little intelligence, Hussein turned it otherwise).

The force capable of standing firm against imperialism is the force currently doing exactly that; there is no evidence like the present. Your calling the leadership of certain countries 'dynasties' is deliberately meant as derogatory and therefore not to be responded to seriously. You called Russia, China and Iran imperialists????? That baffles me; I can think of no instances where they have been imperialist (the Georgian war is not imperialism, Tibet has been part of china since the 14th century and I can find no examples with regards to Iran other than anti-zionist conflicts and being at war with the US-backed Iraq.

What you said about mercenaries sounds like the propaganda that was released by the imperialist media about Libya; in reality, the only side that was paying mercenaries, using rape as a weapon and cutting off women's breasts and leaving them to bleed to death was the tribal mob from Benghazi, not Gadaffi's forces. It is almost certain that only the CIA-backed opponents to the Assad government would be doing that in Syria. Syria is not a monarchy, as much as you seem to like to mindlessly repeat that word in your blithering arguments.

l'EnfermÃ©

26th November 2012, 22:43

^Russia's barbaric wars against Chechnya were not "imperialist"?

GerrardWinstanley

26th November 2012, 23:09

^Russia's barbaric wars against Chechnya were not "imperialist"?I suspect the reality was more complex than that. Not least when it was the invasion of Dagestan by Chechen mujahideen, claiming many lives, that triggered the Second Chechen War. I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary (Mashkadov's plans for Chechnya at least least appeared to be benevolent), but either way, it's an internal affair of Russia's as far as I'm concerned and the alternative could have been serious national instability.

Omsk

26th November 2012, 23:13

it's an internal affair of Russia's as far as I'm concerned

So you are in the defense of a bourgeois dictatorship?

and the alternative could have been serious national instability.

You mean, instability in the capitalist system? Communists need that, in order to gain more strenght. And capitalism always falls into instability.

GerrardWinstanley

26th November 2012, 23:50

So you are in the defense of a bourgeois dictatorship?Even if Russia were a dictatorship (it's not, it's an authoritarian state), no. I'm saying Russia is not imperialist.

You mean, instability in the capitalist system? Communists need that, in order to gain more strenght. And capitalism always falls into instability.Wahhabist violence and regional seperatism is not a threat to capitalism, but can certainly be a threat to stability (which, by extension is a threat to territorial integrity, national security and de facto independence), especially for somebody like Putin who was president of one of the largest, most diverse countries in the world and for whom so much as holding the country together is a precarious balancing act.

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no black & white position on the Chechen War. It's not something I've studied much, but if I see a good enough reason to single out Putin as the principal wrongdoer, I'm sure I'll change my mind, but the man does not fit the profile of an imperialist.

hatzel

27th November 2012, 01:34

I'm saying Russia is not imperialist.

I feel you don't really 'get' the dynamics of imperialism in our time, you know...

Crux

27th November 2012, 01:41

"Morning Star Nutjob"??? The Morning Star is the paper of a Trotskyist party that certainly doesn't support China. In fact, it is so anti-communist that it frequently contains interviews with Labour party MPs. You need to refresh your understanding of the communist movement in Briitain...
Yes, yes the CPB are trotskyists...
You keep using that word. I don't think you understand what it means.

LiberationTheologist

27th November 2012, 01:58

I feel you don't really 'get' the dynamics of imperialism in our time, you know...

What time frame are you using? What time frame is the other person using?
Russia as in now or Russia as in the USSR?

All large nations are invading dominating conquering imperialists.

As far as the Russia, South Osettia thing goes I would hardly label Russia imperialist for its actions in 2008 when it was attacked in by the Georgian state army government which was defending its holy national integrity.

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

Ostrinski

27th November 2012, 02:12

Russia is certainly an imperialist nation. Not a very effective one, and one that would certainly aspire to a higher imperial standard but an imperialist nation nonetheless.

hatzel

27th November 2012, 03:16

Yeah people I'm sorry for all the cheap one-liners in this thread, but sometimes you're reading a post and the only thing that jumps out at you is a phrase like...

holy national integrity

...and you just have to wonder what the hey is going on here...

hetz

27th November 2012, 03:32

Imperialism is not a phrase or an adjective or something you apply to a certain country for doing this or that.
It's the highest state of capitalism and a global "system".
Lenin described it nicely.

LiberationTheologist

27th November 2012, 03:33

A revolution exists independently of whether you understand its objectives. The situation here is a classic revolutionary situation. We have: 1) the emergence of a grassroots counter power (local coordinating committees), 2) forms of political representation that are emerging all of which specifically contest the legitimacy of the regime, 3) the decomposition of the regime, with splits and defections aplenty. And all of this is taking place centrally around the questions of democratic rights. This is a classic democratic revolution. Whether you want to hear that or not.

Well, if you look at the origins of the revolt in the mass protests, look at the forms of popular self-organization that took off, look at the continujing scale of the protests and the small business shutdowns, etc, you have to conclude that there is a considerable popular movement here and needs no fueling "from the outside."

Now, there is evidence of sectarian elements - one should anticipate this. There will be polyglot forces, reactionaries, backward layers, people who want to fight but don't do so on the best political basis. And there's no reason to be complacent about it. But there is no evidence that you or anyone else has provided that these are, or are becoming, the *dominant* forces either in the armed groups or in the political groups.

Well, first of all, the Assad regime bears full responsibility for driving the nation into civil war. I really don't see how the revolt could have avoided militarization, considering the governments crackdown on protesters. Second, in Syria the USA and its allies are providing negligible arms - including no heavy weaponry - and have no political influence beyond the TNC-styled SNC, which has little weight inside of Syria itself.

The dominant force in creating this revolutionary, religious cleansing democracy, coupe de estat movement is the USA. Ya it is a collaborative operation including Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia , naive democracy protestors but at what cost? For you or I to quantify the motivations is not possible so I look at obvious indicators such as religion, class and power. Power being primarily guns, as Mao so eloquently put it. Who is shipping the guns?

You are pushing a naive line here claiming the arms are "negligible." There are videos from early 2011 showing military weapons being used by civilians in mass to murder police. I cant underscore how absolutely ignorant and naive this underestimation of arming the population is especially as you point out to a fervorus religious majority who sees themselves as not in power. From the UN small arms and light weapons -

How do small arms become illicit?

Sources of small arms supplies to areas of crisis and conflict are varied. Domestically, small arms can enter illicit circulation through distribution, theft, leakage, divergence, pilferage or resale. Shipments of small arms to conflict zones from abroad are most often small-scale consignments - a steady trickle of weapons across porous borders. The cumulative destabilizing force of such small-scale trade is not to be underestimated, particularly in unstable regions where small arms are traded from one conflict to another.http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

Qatar is shipping US made weapons and openly announced this a year and a half ago. Did they say they were US made? Of course not. Did the US probably pay for most of them? Probably. Check the serial numbers on the weapons that will prove where they came from, unless these are scrubbed. But who is reporting on this? Certainly not large capital anglo media. Or Emir propaganda from Al Jazeera. Look at the Turkey imperialist invasion zone, the Saudi Arabia Qatar Arab League votes. You think the Syrian National Council was not financed, organized and played like a fiddle by US and Saudi Intelligence agencies? Of course they were. This is a joint effort.

So what? While the Syrian regime boasts of thousands at the demonstrations of its supporters its security and military apparatus murders and tortures its opponents. But history does not run out of lessons. Ben Ali bragged of two million members in his own party a few days before fleeing. Syria is a nation of 22 million people. Multiple million people plus marches in Aleppo and Damascus and huge rallies elsewhere is indeed sign of popular support. For you to deny this proves your dismissive bias. What is your agenda? Don't be a flat out revolutionary romanticist.

So you think this is some sort of imperialist conspiracy? ? Do masses of people really rise up and risk their lives because the CIA said so? Of course not. Are imperialist powers trying to intervene in events to suit themselves? Of course they are. Does that mean we should condemn everyone taking part? Of course not.I condemn people who want revolution so their vile sect of Abrahamic religion can rule through tyrannical democracy oppression. You wouldn't catch me in the street let alone shooting someone for that kind of movement. Would I protest against detention and lack of freedom of expression? Of course but the moment I saw these salafis shooting people and causing civil war with the primary goal of taking power for a salafi religious capitalist state I would oppose them and support the secular and socialist bath party. The very real possibilities of one actions should be judged against demographics and real conditions and with a solid ethical appraisal of reality.

Who has an article on the economic reality of the Baath party in Syria 2001 pre USA invasion of Iraq? The role that invasion played in the Syria coup de estat of 2011 - 2012 has barely been mentioned in this thread.

US imperialism checklist -

Afghanistan - 2001 check, country destroyed, ethnic civil war
Iraq - 2003 check country destroyed religious civil war
Pakistan - 2009 check country manipulated like a toy
Libya - 2011 check country destroyed, bombed 7 months
Syria - 2012 incomplete, check country destroyed coup de estat religious civil war created
Iran - ongoing billions of dollars budgeted and spent for the coup de estat and civil war

Anyone who sees Syria 2011-12 as a mostly spontaneous democratic uprising should be labeled a US nationalist imperialist supporter or is a revolutionary romanticist, maybe both.

Let's Get Free

27th November 2012, 03:33

Has any one of the defenders of the Free Syrian Army on here yet come forward to explain just how these armed mercenaries managed to suddenly spring up, as if by magic, with US-manufactured weapons and technology and why these "revolutionaries" would base their military operations on the border of Turkey (NATO's flagship state)?

The FSA is that it's an organization with some loose centralization and leadership, based in defectors from the military - many of them soldiers who didn't want to murder Syrian civilians, others civilians who had guns - it was formed after about six months. Its emergence followed long after the regime had already militarized the struggle. I've heard them been denounced as a sectarian gang, terrorists, a Saudi-Quatari front, and so on by various polemicists. The most important thing to know about them is that they are made up of about 100,000 assorted rebels, armed forces defectors, and ordinary civilians who decided to volunteer to fight. Nominally, it is led by colonel Riad-Al-Assad, a defector from the air force whose family was executed by the regime.

Let's Get Free

27th November 2012, 04:05

The dominant force in creating this revolutionary, religious cleansing democracy, coupe de estat movement is the USA. Ya it is a collaborative operation including Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia , naive democracy protestors but at what cost? For you or I to quantify the motivations is not possible so I look at obvious indicators such as religion, class and power. Power being primarily guns, as Mao so eloquently put it. Who is shipping the guns?

The Saudis and the U.S. can send arms, where they end up is not really under their control. I think that, combined with US cautioning, is why, despite their pronouncements, they have in fact sent very little in the way of arms. If they were sending a huge amount of arms, we would be seeing a much better equipped opposition, rather then some rag tag rebels with rusty AK-47s and some rocket launchers. And "naive" democracy protesters? For someone who calls themselves a communist or socialist that's a really fucking elitist thing to say.

There are videos from early 2011 showing military weapons being used by civilians in mass to murder police. I cant underscore how absolutely ignorant and naive this underestimation of arming the population is especially as you point out to a fervorus religious majority who sees themselves as not in power. From the UN small arms and light weapons -

Your attempt to blame the armed insurgents, rather than the security apparatus deployed to kill protesters, for starting the civil war is absurd and morally bankrupt.

Anyone who sees Syria 2011-12 as a mostly spontaneous democratic uprising should be labeled a US nationalist imperialist supporter or is a revolutionary romanticist, maybe both.
This was a spontaneous democratic uprising, whether your blind apologetics for a repressive, reactionary, viciously anti-working class hereditary dictatorship allows you to see it or not. It was police violence and decades long rule by the Ba'athist dictatorship, undergirded by repressive 'emergency law' that provoked the protests. It was the police beating of a shop keeper and a 12 year old boy spraying anti-government graffiti on a wall which provoked a spontaneous protest on February 17 2011 in the capital, which was duly suppressed. It was the imprisonment of Kurdish and other political prisoners that led to the spread of hunger strikes against the regime in March 2011. And it was the security forces who strted to murder protesters in large numbers the same month, using everything from tear gas to live bullets to tank shells.

In the most generous light, yours is an example of what was described as 'blanket thinking': taking one aspect of the situation, which you probably understand only dimly, to represent the whole. But that is only a symptom of the problem here, just as your irrational approach in general is only a symptom. The underlying problem is that a wide swathe of people on the left who ought to be on the side of a popular revolution when it happens can't escape the habits of thinking acquired in the 1990s and 2000s: it's a fake revolution, it's controlled by imperialism, anyone who says otherwise is a warmonger ready to make peace with the imperialist mass media.

LiberationTheologist

27th November 2012, 05:16

The Saudis and the U.S. can send arms, where they end up is not really under their control. I think that, combined with US cautioning, is why, despite their pronouncements, they have in fact sent very little in the way of arms. If they were sending a huge amount of arms, we would be seeing a much better equipped opposition, rather then some rag tag rebels with rusty AK-47s and some rocket launchers. And "naive" democracy protesters? For someone who calls themselves a communist or socialist that's a really fucking elitist thing to say.

"rusty AK-47's" and a few rocket launchers" Cautioning against the tyranny of democracy where it is liable to occur, and we have witnessed that in Syria, just as in Iraq, is not elitist it is a reality check of what happens when tyrannical majorities enforce their will on others. I have another litmus test for you, do you think the USA is a democracy? I wont hold my breath for an answer with your practice of avoiding anything contradictory to your romantic narrative.

Your attempt to blame the armed insurgents, rather than the security apparatus deployed to kill protesters, for starting the civil war is absurd and morally bankrupt.Oh the security apparatus is to blame but do you remember when the corporate anglo media was complaining about the peaceful protestors being fired on? How long did that media sect douse us with propaganda about the poor peaceful protestors. The following is June 2011. I can find this kind of thing happening in April too. I actually remember this being the first time the media reported on the "peaceful protestors" even though this kind of murder was going on for months. You are a johnny come late on this matter just like the Houla massacre, which you refuse to admit was a religious sectarian massacre. You are completely misinformed and/or dishonest not on just that matter but the whole time line of events and nature of the religious sectarian counter revolutionaries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eooLXTO-rE&feature=related&bpctr=1353993138

This was a spontaneous democratic uprising, whether your blind apologetics for a repressive, reactionary, viciously anti-working class hereditary dictatorship allows you to see it or not. It was police violence and decades long rule by the Ba'athist dictatorship, undergirded by repressive 'emergency law' that provoked the protests. It was the police beating of a shop keeper and a 12 year old boy spraying anti-government graffiti on a wall which provoked a spontaneous protest on February 17 2011 in the capital, which was duly suppressed. It was the imprisonment of Kurdish and other political prisoners that led to the spread of hunger strikes against the regime in March 2011. And it was the security forces who strted to murder protesters in large numbers the same month, using everything from tear gas to live bullets to tank shells.

In the most generous light, yours is an example of what was described as 'blanket thinking': taking one aspect of the situation, which you probably understand only dimly, to represent the whole. But that is only a symptom of the problem here, just as your irrational approach in general is only a symptom. The underlying problem is that a wide swathe of people on the left who ought to be on the side of a popular revolution when it happens can't escape the habits of thinking acquired in the 1990s and 2000s: it's a fake revolution, it's controlled by imperialism, anyone who says otherwise is a warmonger ready to make peace with the imperialist mass media.Ya, hey now its about the working class , sure whatever you say. I'm convinced. Just spout off something about the working class and raise your fist in solidarity at the TV.

You never attempt to answer the critical questions asked or points made so what can I say. Lets do another consistency test here. Do you support the violent overthrow of the US government so "we" can have Democracy? I won't wait for a reply.

Gladiator quotes -

"The Houla massacre was done by Assad"

"Revolutionary wars are cool"

"those guns were almost all stolen from the surrendering troops and the rest are hunting rifles"

l'EnfermÃ©

27th November 2012, 07:16

I suspect the reality was more complex than that. Not least when it was the invasion of Dagestan by Chechen mujahideen, claiming many lives, that triggered the Second Chechen War. I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary (Mashkadov's plans for Chechnya at least least appeared to be benevolent), but either way, it's an internal affair of Russia's as far as I'm concerned and the alternative could have been serious national instability.
You mean the invasion of Dagestan by FSB-sponsored Wahhabists, an invasion which has its logistics provided almost entirely by the FSB also? What does Dagestan have to do with the first war, I have no idea. A war in which almost 100,000 civilians were killed for no reason.

Chechnya is not an "internal affair" for Russia. Russia is an internal affair for Russia. Chechnya is an "internal affair" for Chechnya. Chechnya is to Russia what Algeria was to France. Would you have opposed Algeria's national-liberation war because it caused national instability in France?

Ocean Seal

27th November 2012, 10:39

Russia is certainly an imperialist nation. Not a very effective one, and one that would certainly aspire to a higher imperial standard but an imperialist nation nonetheless.
All capitalist nations aspire to be imperialist. Russia is imperialist by virtue of its power, and capital that it sinks elsewhere.

hashem

27th November 2012, 15:01

You have no idea what you're saying. Imperialists are aggressors who seek exclusive control of the planet's resource's and to profit from the economic ruin of peaceful countries. These states, however much you might not like their governments, are well-advised to take up arms and defend themselves.

Imperialists are not necessarily aggressors, they are classes who defend a certain economical system. sometimes when one imperialist power is weak, it takes defensive position, but that wont change its nature. the important thing which determines essence of different sides of a conflict, is not about who attacks and who defends. one must see the reason behind a certain conflict in order to determine essence of different sides and his position towards them.

ordinary people of Syria have no interest in current conflict and both sides are trying to misuse them. if Baath party was representing broad masses of Syria, then it would grant them freedom of speech, freedom of association, ability to choose and criticize their leaders and it would reduce class differences (these are all bourgeoisie democratic tasks). if people of Syria had such luxuries then there was no cause for Insurgency. but where are insurgents coming from? perhaps their guns and money are coming from NATO, Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and ... but their soldiers? who made path for insurgency and NATO intervention?

How does the use of arms supplied by Israel and NATO and basing your operations on the border of a NATO country and taking their assistance constitute "standing firm against imperialism"? I suppose when the FSA crush the SAF and unilaterally take power, NATO, Israel and the Saudis will find all their efforts were in vain in the end? Wishful thinking.

i never claimed FSA and similar insurgents are willing or able to stand firm against imperialism. i simply asked which force do you think is capable of doing so? and i thought the answer is obvious for anyone who claims to be a leftist but it looks like it isnt. so i will give you the answer: broad masses of toilers who are lead by class conscious proletariat are capable of standing firm against imperialism and can lead countries to a better future.

Russia, China and certainly Iran are not imperialists. Russia and China are "emerging" economies, but are by no means set to replace the global North as the world's reigning imperial powers (who stand alone in using war to secure exclusive control of the world's resources). There is certainly a strategic alliance between these countries, which will prove pivotal for the military defeat of imperialism (which socialists should support).

Russia and China are "emerging" economies. they are not trying to replace the global North as the world's reigning imperial powers (really? i thought they have already replaced the "global North" to some degree. why are they so passive and are not trying to gain dominance? they are very humanitarian. perhaps thats the reason!).

because of above mentioned reasons, Russia and China are not imperialists. this is very logical! thus we should support these non imperialist countries against imperialist countries and their support is pivotal for us!

i suggest you to be more careful. if aliens see your logic they may think you are Mr Spock and kidnap you!

hashem

27th November 2012, 15:15

You have misrepresented my position. I wouldn't for a second claim that Gadaffi or the DPRK are 'bad'; nor would I suggest that you should support them as the lesser of two evils. I would support them on their own merits as socialist/progressive AND as anti-imperialist forces on top of that. Additionally, it is important to understand that the Ba'ath party started off as a socialist party (though of course in Iraq, as the middle-class army general of little intelligence, Hussein turned it otherwise).

The force capable of standing firm against imperialism is the force currently doing exactly that; there is no evidence like the present. Your calling the leadership of certain countries 'dynasties' is deliberately meant as derogatory and therefore not to be responded to seriously. You called Russia, China and Iran imperialists????? That baffles me; I can think of no instances where they have been imperialist (the Georgian war is not imperialism, Tibet has been part of china since the 14th century and I can find no examples with regards to Iran other than anti-zionist conflicts and being at war with the US-backed Iraq.

What you said about mercenaries sounds like the propaganda that was released by the imperialist media about Libya; in reality, the only side that was paying mercenaries, using rape as a weapon and cutting off women's breasts and leaving them to bleed to death was the tribal mob from Benghazi, not Gadaffi's forces. It is almost certain that only the CIA-backed opponents to the Assad government would be doing that in Syria. Syria is not a monarchy, as much as you seem to like to mindlessly repeat that word in your blithering arguments.

you are right. i misrepresented your position. i thought you are a new learner who is trying to take a proletarian position. i also thought you are supporting Asad because you see his regime as lesser evil. but now i see that you are a fascist who is deliberately supporting fascists and reactionaries. so there is no reason for further discussion.

im sorry about my mistake.

LiberationTheologist

29th November 2012, 11:44

Imperialists are not necessarily aggressors, they are classes who defend a certain economical system. sometimes when one imperialist power is weak, it takes defensive position, but that wont change its nature. the important thing which determines essence of different sides of a conflict, is not about who attacks and who defends. one must see the reason behind a certain conflict in order to determine essence of different sides and his position towards them.

Imperialist nations are aggressors. The fact that some imperialist nations clash with each other does not mean you can somehow remove aggression from determining who is the worst imperialist. Consistency is not a virtue when you are logically incorrect. For you to remove aggression as a consideration of who should be supported or not moves opinions to the realm of political partisan cheerleading, with very deadly consequences. I prefer morally and ethically sound analysis which opposes wars of aggression AND imperialism, thank you very much.

ordinary people of Syria have no interest in current conflict and both sides are trying to misuse them. if Baath party was representing broad masses of Syria, then it would grant them freedom of speech, freedom of association, ability to choose and criticize their leaders and it would reduce class differences (these are all bourgeoisie democratic tasks). if people of Syria had such luxuries then there was no cause for Insurgency. but where are insurgents coming from? perhaps their guns and money are coming from NATO, Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and ... but their soldiers? who made path for insurgency and NATO intervention?If the people of Syria, can look at their country after what has happened in the past 2 years and somehow say "it was worth it" then you have to question what kind of brainwashing they have undergone. They should have asked from the start -

1.who is leading this conflict against the government
2. who is likely to take it over?
3. how much bloodshed is likely to occur?

Freedom expression, democracy, nothing they will gain will be worth the slaughter that they have gone through and committed. The point is, you better be damn careful before you start a war, because slaughter on this scale is just not worth it. I'm sure plenty of salafi sunni idiots who started this democratic tyranny movement will just shout allah u ahkbar and disagree. So will some self described socialist groups, what imperialist collaborators they are. Look at the death and destruction they brought to Syria.

i never claimed FSA and similar insurgents are willing or able to stand firm against imperialism. i simply asked which force do you think is capable of doing so? and i thought the answer is obvious for anyone who claims to be a leftist but it looks like it isnt. so i will give you the answer: broad masses of toilers who are lead by class conscious proletariat are capable of standing firm against imperialism and can lead countries to a better future.Any so called socialist, communist or workers party who gave material aid and verbal moral support that led to the slaughter we are seeing in Syria for the past two years should be denounced. I'm speaking mostly of the opposition here although obviously the Syrian government has made mistakes which could have prevented this conflict. To the Syrian governments credit they tried to reform and to stop the imperialists and their naive helpers but it was too late. Here is hoping they can reform and remain in power.

The USA, Isreal, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, Qatar will all continue to support terrorism in Syria.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

29th November 2012, 15:11

Hmm, I think at this point it's just a clash between to imperial powers, USA and the west against Russia and Iran. Lenin said that in such a situation we ought support neither side since it's just imperialists against imperialists, I think we ought to learn a thing from Lenin

hashem

29th November 2012, 21:32

For you to remove aggression as a consideration of who should be supported or not moves opinions to the realm of political partisan cheerleading

then dont be shy. say that during the first world war internationalists who didnt cared which side has started the war were "political partisan cheerleaders". on that time the question was: what is the reason of war and what is the proletarian position towards it. no class conscious worker was interested to know which side (Allies or Central powers) is attacking or defending.

even in current conflict no one can say for certain that which side started the war. was it baath regime which violently oppressed Syrian people, killed political prisoners and destroyed hopes for peaceful reforms or was it insurgents who used peoples anger and armed them with foreign imperialists money and weapons? neither sides are less aggressor than the other.

1.who is leading this conflict against the government
2. who is likely to take it over?
3. how much bloodshed is likely to occur?

why are your questions one sided? for example after asking about who is leading against the government, why dont you ask who is leading the government? isnt that important for people who are stuck in this conflict? and why dont you ask why are reactionaries leading both sides and where are progressive forces?

answers of number 1 & 2 are obvious. about number 3, i cant help you, perhaps a fortuneteller can answer that. but why are you asking it? you want to say that people should be economical about prices which they pay for liberation? can you tell what is the good price and how it can be calculated before starting a struggle? trying to find an answer for this question is stupid. on the other hand, tolerating the baath regime isnt "cheap" either. it has killed tens of thousands political dissidents who were not waging or supporting armed struggle even before current insurgency. have you forgotten the massacre in 1980s? Asad and his father brutally killed political prisoners who were not sentenced to death.

Freedom expression, democracy, nothing they will gain will be worth the slaughter that they have gone through and committed.

so you are saying:

1- insurgency under current leadership can lead to Freedom of expression and democracy.

2- previous revolutions which made their way with even more blood were results of mistakes. perhaps French people made a mistake when they abolished monarchy and feudalism. Russian people made a huge mistake in 1917. Vietnamese people made a mistake when they fought with japanese, French and American imperialists instead of handing over their country. Palestinian people are mistaking for decades and ...
instead of these mistakes, revolutionaries should refer to fortunetellers in order to determine the price of revolution and start the revolution when and if the price is cheap, no matter how expensive tolerance can be and what consequences will patience have.

I'm speaking mostly of the opposition here although obviously the Syrian government has made mistakes which could have prevented this conflict. To the Syrian governments credit they tried to reform and to stop the imperialists and their naive helpers but it was too late. Here is hoping they can reform and remain in power.

despite several claims that baath party is socialist and economy is being managed that way, baath regime is liberalizing the economy while trade unions as well as true socialist and democratic parties are banned. this is what Baath governments superstructure is built on. as i said before, the government is not representing bourgeoisie as a class, its only representing backward sections of bourgeoisie and therefore it can only have a backward governmental system (monarchy). its a puppet of foreign imperialists as well and the war which its waging is no less proxy war when its being waged by government against insurgents than the opposite situation. Russia, China and Iran are on one side, NATO and Arab reactionaries are on the other side.

Syrian governments deeds are not mistakes. they are logical results of its nature. it can only rule that way. no serious reform is possible until current system changes, not any kind of change but the one which is in a correct path.

since the Baath government is historically on the weak side, it wont be able to last against a greater force either, even if its truly "better" than it. even if workers and toilers decide to support the government, its the government which rejects their support. if Baath party seeks to rally workers and toilers, it should either organize them or let them to organize, but backward sections of bourgeoisie are more afraid of organized and armed workers than other sections of bourgeoisie and foreign imperialists. monarchy is opposed to independent popular organizations as well. so there is no chance that workers and toilers can join Asad as a class. but what about individually? yes, but if they do so, they will lose their class independence and will not have better conditions in case of victory (which is impossible). more than that: they must submit to backward bourgeoisie organizations, unwanted and incompetent leaders, military tactics, legislation, economical system, foreign relationship and ... (briefly: a backward superstructure) which is not just unable to deal with insurgency but its provoking it.

arent you the one who asks them to become "political partisan cheerleaders"?

Let's Get Free

29th November 2012, 22:17

I have another litmus test for you, do you think the USA is a democracy? I wont hold my breath for an answer with your practice of avoiding anything contradictory to your romantic narrative.

The U.S. is a bourgeois democracy, but even that is a step forward from a bourgeois police state dictatorship such as Syria's.

Oh the security apparatus is to blame but do you remember when the corporate anglo media was complaining about the peaceful protestors being fired on? How long did that media sect douse us with propaganda about the poor peaceful protestors. The following is June 2011. I can find this kind of thing happening in April too. I actually remember this being the first time the media reported on the "peaceful protestors" even though this kind of murder was going on for months.

Don't be fucking ridiculous. It was the security apparatus who murdered unarmed protesters in large numbers that started this mess in the first place. There is a direct line of causation here. There simply isn't any way an armed conflict could have been avoided, and the regime deserves full blame for driving Syria into civil war.

You are a johnny come late on this matter just like the Houla massacre, which you refuse to admit was a religious sectarian massacre. You are completely misinformed and/or dishonest not on just that matter but the whole time line of events and nature of the religious sectarian counter revolutionaries.

Not that it matters now, and not that anyone should use the brutal murders of over a hundred people to further their own agendas, but according to actual eyewitness accounts, it was the regime that carried out the killings.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eyewitnesses-contradict-claims-that-rebels-carried-out-houla-massacre-a-839593.html

Do you support the violent overthrow of the US government so "we" can have Democracy? I won't wait for a reply.
This question is absurd.

Gladiator quotes -

"The Houla massacre was done by Assad"

That one's true.

"Revolutionary wars are cool"

"those guns were almost all stolen from the surrendering troops and the rest are hunting rifles"

When the hell did I ever say those things?

LiberationTheologist

30th November 2012, 02:07

The U.S. is a bourgeois democracy, but even that is a step forward from a bourgeois police state dictatorship such as Syria's.

The fact that you qualify the USA as a democracy is all I need to know from you. You want to qualify that statement or will you let it stand?

Don't be fucking ridiculous. It was the security apparatus who murdered unarmed protesters in large numbers that started this mess in the first place. There is a direct line of causation here. There simply isn't any way an armed conflict could have been avoided, and the regime deserves full blame for driving Syria into civil war. Ya, the "peacful protetstors" You really are naive. Look if you raise up against your government, and even if you don't sometimes, you too will get murdered this is the way it works everywhere.

"peaceful protestors"

Not that it matters now, and not that anyone should use the brutal murders of over a hundred people to further their own agendas, but according to actual eyewitness accounts, it was the regime that carried out the killings.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eyewitnesses-contradict-claims-that-rebels-carried-out-houla-massacre-a-839593.html

I gave you a source on the Houla massacre being exposed as a fraud and even the corporate media was forced to carry some minor news piece mentioning "dispute" of the massacre that the sunni salafis alaughter that was being carried out on alawites. You continue to remain true to your consistent narrative though.

[quote]This question is absurd.Well to you it is because you vocally support a disgusting romanticized war in other peoples countries while flat out refusing to undertake one in your own country - USA which murders hundreds of thousands, no millions around the globe - for lies, in a never ending fashion.

Let's Get Free

30th November 2012, 02:57

LiberationTheologist

30th November 2012, 03:05

then dont be shy. say that during the first world war internationalists who didnt cared which side has started the war were "political partisan cheerleaders". on that time the question was: what is the reason of war and what is the proletarian position towards it. no class conscious worker was interested to know which side (Allies or Central powers) is attacking or defending.

This is not the first world war, this is Syria in 2012. The aggressors are in this case mostly the salafi democratic tyranny terrorists.

even in current conflict no one can say for certain that which side started the war. was it baath regime which violently oppressed Syrian people, killed political prisoners and destroyed hopes for peaceful reforms or was it insurgents who used peoples anger and armed them with foreign imperialists money and weapons? neither sides are less aggressor than the other.Well this is a step toward admitting that you are not sure who the aggressors are so I can respect this statement.

why are your questions one sided? for example after asking about who is leading against the government, why dont you ask who is leading the government? isnt that important for people who are stuck in this conflict? and why dont you ask why are reactionaries leading both sides and where are progressive forces?My questions were one sided because to anyone who has truly been paying attention it is obvious that this uprising would not be happening if it were not fueled by a religious sect seeking political primacy and an insurgency armed by FOREIGN governments.

answers of number 1 & 2 are obvious. about number 3, i cant help you, perhaps a fortuneteller can answer that. but why are you asking it? you want to say that people should be economical about prices which they pay for liberation? can you tell what is the good price and how it can be calculated before starting a struggle? trying to find an answer for this question is stupid. on the other hand, tolerating the baath regime isnt "cheap" either. it has killed tens of thousands political dissidents who were not waging or supporting armed struggle even before current insurgency. have you forgotten the massacre in 1980s? Asad and his father brutally killed political prisoners who were not sentenced to death.First off those people rose up against the govenment in armed rebellion so of course they were going to get killed, that is what happens when you take up arms against the government. You are claiming it was also unarmed people and I think that is insincere although I dont doubt some nonviolent people were murdered just for being associated.

Second, yes I am saying there is definitely a way to calculate whether your government should be opposed militarily and it doesn't take a fortune teller to know if the decision should be made. All the conditions in the area must be taken into consideration. As if there were not plenty of examples for Syrians to see next door in Iraq? You had to be naive to think a religious sectarian foreign armed insurgency would be worth the humanitarian, animal and environmental damage it would cost. Better to deal with the baathists, without question and history has born that out. You might accuse me of hindsight, but recent history right next door in Iraq, and Libya shows just how foolish it was to support this religious sect who created all of this violence. This was not egypt style protest, it was armed insurgency from the get go.

so you are saying:

1- insurgency under current leadership can lead to Freedom of expression and democracy.No, I am saying even if that was the result it still would not have been worth it because the slaughter would have been too great a price to pay and there were other better non armed methods to use in this situation.

2- previous revolutions which made their way with even more blood were results of mistakes. perhaps French people made a mistake when they abolished monarchy and feudalism. Russian people made a huge mistake in 1917. Vietnamese people made a mistake when they fought with japanese, French and American imperialists instead of handing over their country. Palestinian people are mistaking for decades and ...
instead of these mistakes, revolutionaries should refer to fortunetellers in order to determine the price of revolution and start the revolution when and if the price is cheap, no matter how expensive tolerance can be and what consequences will patience have. Well in hindsight the Russian revolution was definitely a mistake, look at the tyranny it produced. We are talking about imperialist wars here so for you to throw in other revolutions such as in Vietnam of the 1950's - a national war of liberation against an occupier and France - a straight up class war 1780's is absurd, you are comparing apples and oranges. The sunni salafists are the useful puppets of the imperialist powers destroying their country because they want to pull the strings of power. And as I'm sure you will agree most of them will never see the material benefits from there despicable criminal actions. This particular fight could have been won with much less blood shed and without armed rebellion.

despite several claims that baath party is socialist and economy is being managed that way, baath regime is liberalizing the economy while trade unions as well as true socialist and democratic parties are banned. this is what Baath governments superstructure is built on. as i said before, the government is not representing bourgeoisie as a class, its only representing backward sections of bourgeoisie and therefore it can only have a backward governmental system (monarchy). its a puppet of foreign imperialists as well and the war which its waging is no less proxy war when its being waged by government against insurgents than the opposite situation. Russia, China and Iran are on one side, NATO and Arab reactionaries are on the other side.So here you seem to have at least opened the door to admitting that an armed war should have been avoided in the interest of the vast majority of people in Syria. I would definitely agree with this last statement.

Syrian governments deeds are not mistakes. they are logical results of its nature. it can only rule that way. no serious reform is possible until current system changes, not any kind of change but the one which is in a correct path. Syria has had to contend with a prolonged campaign to overthrow it and that reality needs to be recognized.

since the Baath government is historically on the weak side, it wont be able to last against a greater force either, even if its truly "better" than it. even if workers and toilers decide to support the government, its the government which rejects their support. if Baath party seeks to rally workers and toilers, it should either organize them or let them to organize, but backward sections of bourgeoisie are more afraid of organized and armed workers than other sections of bourgeoisie and foreign imperialists. monarchy is opposed to independent popular organizations as well. so there is no chance that workers and toilers can join Asad as a class. but what about individually? yes, but if they do so, they will lose their class independence and will not have better conditions in case of victory (which is impossible). more than that: they must submit to backward bourgeoisie organizations, unwanted and incompetent leaders, military tactics, legislation, economical system, foreign relationship and ... (briefly: a backward superstructure) which is not just unable to deal with insurgency but its provoking it.You are taking things out of logical context here. You state the Syrian Baath Party is unable to stop people from organizing to overthrow it internally which makes those same people seek to overthrow it with external help, hence the Syrian government is backwards. This is illogical.

I will not to pretend to know the social benefits of the Syrian welfare system but I do know how we, meaning anglo speakers and Europeans have been propagandized with this same nonsense about the "discrimination" against the Shia in Iraq and the "theft by Gaddafi" which was actually providing the people of Libya with a veritable socialist paradise in actuality. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see that materially the people in Syria regardless of their religion were well or at least adequately taken care of.

arent you the one who asks them to become "political partisan cheerleaders"? My comment about political partisan cheerleaders was me urging people not to reject objectivity of the actual situation at hand in the context of the very real imperialist threat Syria was and is facing. People should look at the very real recent history of foreign government (USA mainly) created wars in the area and to also look at the salafi sunni nuts who were likely to create unnecessary massive bloodshed in the context of this imperialist proxy war. History has proven what a terrible idea it was to support this imperialist fueled civil war.

marxleninstalinmao

3rd December 2012, 20:37

How the hell is China's economy "largely socialist?"
Because most major services are still in public hands and the state controls almost all business ventures, much to the chagrin of American capitalists. And please don't start calling it 'state capitalist' as this shows a complete lack of understanding of socialism, which is not a stateless society.

I am the first to criticise China when it steps towards 'market socialism', a nonsense concept in itself, but that does not mean I withdraw all support for it or the hope that it will one day return to it's socialist roots, nor that I incorrectly call it capitalist like so many on this forum.

marxleninstalinmao

3rd December 2012, 20:39

Oh god, not another fucking Morning Star nutjob.

Restrict this idiot for supporting one of the largest capitalist superpowers in the world, please.
Lol, is this another instance of trotskyists calling each other stalinist as an insult. The Morning Star is the newspaper of a trotskyist party so support of China is very unlikely from that source, especially when you consider that the MS keeps featuring interviews with Labour left MPs...

Prometeo liberado

4th December 2012, 10:00

Blake's Baby

4th December 2012, 11:30

Lol, is this another instance of trotskyists calling each other stalinist as an insult. The Morning Star is the newspaper of a trotskyist party so support of China is very unlikely from that source, especially when you consider that the MS keeps featuring interviews with Labour left MPs...

No it isn't, you idiot, the Morning Star is the paper of the CPB, a Stalinist party. The fact is, when your glorious leader Harpal Brar was in the SLP (and head of the Stalin Society) they had talks with the CPB about a merger. Find out about your own history, please.

Also, Choler doesn't refer to you as a Stalinist, so I don't why you should get your knickers in a twist.

EDIT you do realise, you already posted about this on November 25th?

"Morning Star Nutjob"??? The Morning Star is the paper of a Trotskyist party that certainly doesn't support China. In fact, it is so anti-communist that it frequently contains interviews with Labour party MPs. You need to refresh your understanding of the communist movement in Briitain...

Do you just log on once a week and post almost the same comment about how you're not a 'Morning Star nutjob'? You do realise of course that it rather re-inforces the point that Choler is making?

Grenzer

4th December 2012, 15:53

The CPB does, in fact, support China strongly. It considers Dengism to be a pragmatic evolution of socialism for the 21st Century. I do have some familiarity with Britain's leftist organizations, but the CPB is probably the one I know about the least. With that said, it seems that CPB is primarily made of elements of the liquidated pro-Soviet CPGB. The left Stalinists-cum-Kautskyites were able to nab the name of CPGB first, or else the CPB would probably have it.

The CPGB-ML just seems like a more insane version of the CPB. I kind of like them in a way since they, like all Stalinists in general, provide unintentional comedy relief on occasion. Harpal Brar is like Britain's Grover Furr, at least so far as Stalin is concerned..

Grenzer

4th December 2012, 15:58

As has been said before we have the weapon of analysis and our own words to use as weapons. We choose the class view here which in this arena means a very short term alliance with the Assad forces. If he prevails militant Islam and imperialism will have failed and the Bourgeois government will be ripe for concessions to the progressive forces of armed secularists and workers. Striking at the weak Assad. Trots must say no. They must say anything while the rest do everything.

Are you serious? Imperialism won't have "failed" because imperialism is a characteristic of global capitalism, not a policy that is willingly deployed by individual countries. The only way to defeat imperialism is to defeat capitalism, and the only way to do that is to foster proletarian class independence and stop involving ourselves in inter-Capital fights. Supporting Assad amounts to supporting the bourgeoisie, not the workers. Your justification for doing so amounts to little more than moralism. The mentality that we must "do something" is incredibly fallacious, and as you've demonstrated, leads one into social-democratic politics of supporting the "progressive" outcome.

GoddessCleoLover

4th December 2012, 16:21

I can't see any compelling reason to support Assad, just a schematic application of Marcyism. Global class warfare analysis always contained a streak of Manicheanism, and the cold war era in which Marcy formulated his theory has passed into history.

To my mind, the Assad regime in neither anti-imperialist in nature nor representative of Syrian workers, nor even "popular". Assad's regime is based upon a privileged elite within the Alawite community which constitutes the majority of the Syrian bourgeoisie. This ruling class is seeking to perpetuate is reign through terror and IMO Leftists worldwide out not make the error of allying themselves, even temporarily, with the blood-drenched bourgeois regime.

marxleninstalinmao

4th December 2012, 21:24

Yes, yes the CPB are trotskyists...
You keep using that word. I don't think you understand what it means.
... Followers and admirers of Trotsky.....

you are right. i misrepresented your position. i thought you are a new learner who is trying to take a proletarian position. i also thought you are supporting Asad because you see his regime as lesser evil. but now i see that you are a fascist who is deliberately supporting fascists and reactionaries. so there is no reason for further discussion.

im sorry about my mistake.

That makes absolutely no sense. We are not living in a movie where there is good and bad and that is all; real life is much more complicated than that. This isn't about he is bad but he is worse, this is about dialectic materialism, marxism and, consequently, recognising what stage different parts of the world are in.

No it isn't, you idiot, the Morning Star is the paper of the CPB, a Stalinist party. The fact is, when your glorious leader Harpal Brar was in the SLP (and head of the Stalin Society) they had talks with the CPB about a merger. Find out about your own history, please.

Also, Choler doesn't refer to you as a Stalinist, so I don't why you should get your knickers in a twist.

EDIT you do realise, you already posted about this on November 25th?

Do you just log on once a week and post almost the same comment about how you're not a 'Morning Star nutjob'? You do realise of course that it rather re-inforces the point that Choler is making?

Hahaha very funny; obvious mistake, I have evidently replied twice to a few of the posts here. These things happen.

Maybe read the Morning star and see what the CPB actually say about Stalin and Trotsky?

The CPB does, in fact, support China strongly. It considers Dengism to be a pragmatic evolution of socialism for the 21st Century. I do have some familiarity with Britain's leftist organizations, but the CPB is probably the one I know about the least. With that said, it seems that CPB is primarily made of elements of the liquidated pro-Soviet CPGB. The left Stalinists-cum-Kautskyites were able to nab the name of CPGB first, or else the CPB would probably have it.

The CPGB-ML just seems like a more insane version of the CPB. I kind of like them in a way since they, like all Stalinists in general, provide unintentional comedy relief on occasion. Harpal Brar is like Britain's Grover Furr, at least so far as Stalin is concerned..

He is a much more intelligent person than you are, so I would consider you the comic relief.

Prometeo liberado

5th December 2012, 02:48

Are you serious? Imperialism won't have "failed" because imperialism is a characteristic of global capitalism, not a policy that is willingly deployed by individual countries. The only way to defeat imperialism is to defeat capitalism, and the only way to do that is to foster proletarian class independence and stop involving ourselves in inter-Capital fights. Supporting Assad amounts to supporting the bourgeoisie, not the workers. Your justification for doing so amounts to little more than moralism. The mentality that we must "do something" is incredibly fallacious, and as you've demonstrated, leads one into social-democratic politics of supporting the "progressive" outcome.

"Something", as you call it,is happening whether we chooses to hep guide it or not. Standing idly by only helps make us all more irrelevant than we already are. I take a materialist view of the events shaping history. That's pretty serious to me and my class. You?

TheCat'sHat

5th December 2012, 03:31

I oppose "humanitarian imperialism" too. The difference is I oppose the "humanitarian imperialism" of more states than just the USA. It always amazes me how U.S-centric some supposed anti-imperialist americans are.

Exactly. I was just about to point out that Asaad let's the Russians use Syria's port city of Tartus for its access to the Medditeranian. I guess Russian imperialism is now benign since it's not American imperialism?

Crux

5th December 2012, 03:43

... Followers and admirers of Trotsky.....
And you think the CPB are that? Interesting.

marxleninstalinmao

10th December 2012, 17:25

I think if this was another regime, say a Mubarak, you wouldn't be making these preposterous apologies for it. It is purely because it is Assad and you and people like you believe that there is something inherently progressive and justified about the regime because of its antagonism with Washington, and that is why you descend to this level of utterly rotten casuistry.

And no, I wouldn't advise anyone to take up arms to try and overthrow the most powerful, most well-equipped state in human history. Unless they are intent on instant suicide, that is.

Well firstly, a nation is not automatically progressive if it is against the USA (take Iran for example). However there are/were progressive elements to Syria and, more obviously, Gadaffi's Libya, which are supportable on their own merits as well as for a national liberation struggle. I really think your world outlook needs serious refining; you seem to be oversimplifying even the most basic concepts (such as anti-imperialism, national-liberation etc.)

I can't see any compelling reason to support Assad, just a schematic application of Marcyism. Global class warfare analysis always contained a streak of Manicheanism, and the cold war era in which Marcy formulated his theory has passed into history.

To my mind, the Assad regime in neither anti-imperialist in nature nor representative of Syrian workers, nor even "popular". Assad's regime is based upon a privileged elite within the Alawite community which constitutes the majority of the Syrian bourgeoisie. This ruling class is seeking to perpetuate is reign through terror and IMO Leftists worldwide out not make the error of allying themselves, even temporarily, with the blood-drenched bourgeois regime.

Nobody's claiming Assad is a socialist, but if you knew anything about Syria or had any reliable sources from inside the region, you'd know that his government is popular and the vast majority of stories of a repressive dictatorship are imperialist propaganda. That's not to say, of course, that every Syrian supports him, nor that every Libyan supported Gadaffi, that would be impossible and silly to suggest.

And you think the CPB are that? Interesting.

Yes absolutely. They also show social-democractic tendencies, as I have already explained in a previous post.