Statement from Syrian Communist Youth Union

[Althusser]

https://redyouthuk.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/statement-of-the-syrian-communist-youth-union/


Statement of the Syrian Communist Youth Union
Posted on January 2, 2013 by Red Youth

Red Youth, standing shoulder to shoulder with our comrades in the Syrian Communist Youth Union reproduce the statement of the revolutionary Syrian youth who stand with the legitimate government of the Syrian people and the President Bashar al-Assad against the imperialist-backed forces of reaction and obscurantism.

http://redyouthuk.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/assad-rally.jpg

Dear comrades and friends:

Nowadays, Syria is facing one of the most serious position in its modern history, when the world imperialist attack is increased using most reactionary forces with full support and funding of the Arab reactionary regimes who they are Imperialist agents.

Today the Syrian people and youth are facing the terrorist operations, massacres and incitement on the various components of the Syrian people, where the terrorist operations targeting civilians, soldiers, academics and active youth. These operations are carried out by terrorist groups and extremist reactionary forces especially its obscurantist Muslim Brotherhood organization with direct support by weapons and through media campaigns which are led, funded and fabricated by treason and reactionary Arab regimes especially oil Arab Gulf countries in addition to NATO interference in the region by Turkey. The treason forces who are called themselves ″The Syrian opposition″ are asking for external intervention on Syria by NATO, which means to invade our country depending upon the criminal imperialist model that we witnessed in Libya and Iraq, which means to allow NATO to invade and occupy Syria, this what the Syrian people and youth are against it and will fight it by all means and forms. In this occasion, the Syrian Communist Party and Syrian Communist Youth Union – Khaled Bagdash Youth have organized many demonstrations and sit-ins in various parts of Syria rejecting the imperialist interventions in the country affairs and supporting the Syrian national steadfastness, and our comrades is working in many region to relief and help the refugees.

Despite everything that is happening, the Syrian national steadfastness continues to face the Zionist and imperialist pressures and blackmails and still insists to restore the occupied Syrian Golan and rejecting imperialist domination plans such as the imperialist plan that so called “the new greater middle east”. This national steadfastness is the cornerstone in the victories which achieved by the national resistance in the East Mediterranean region. Syria is the stronghold facing the imperialist plans and projects in the region, and it is the main supporter to national resistance in the region, this caused it to won the hostility of imperialists, Zionists, reactionaries and their traitors.

But the neoliberal economic policies that have been applied in recent years led to impoverish the masses of people and led to increasing the unemployment status among young people and gave a strong blow to the national production, which create a breeding ground for the work and activities of reactionary forces, and established for the unfortunate events that taking place in the country. This is what Syrian communists have warned and struggled against everywhere and with various shapes.
Syrian Communist Youth Union – Khaled Bagdash Youth confirms the full commitment with the policy of Syrian Communist Party, which was adopted in his 11th Congress, and the essential orientations of the struggle of the Party in the current stage which was adopted in the last meeting of the Central Committee of the Party. As following:

1. Defending for the national independence and sovereignty, keeping back the imperialist plots and the attempts of Arab and local reactionary forces , and mobilizing the people mass under the great national slogan: “Syria will not Kneel down! “.
2. Struggling against the neo-liberal economic policies, with all its shapes and characters, defending for the national production and interests of producers, and proposing the tangible alternatives with confirming the general orientation, that adopted by th 11th congress of SCP about reinforcing the public sector and the interfering role of the state in the frame of national state capitalism that has a social character and tasks.
3. Defending firmly for the toiling popular mass and escalation the class struggle.

Dear comrades and friends:

The Syrian communist youth union – Khaled Bagdash youth struggles through the direct mass activity, demand petitions, trade unions, students union and through all fields of work and study to maintain the Syrian national steadfastness against the plans and conspiracies of imperialism, Zionism and reactionary Forces. And also against the neoliberal economic policies, to support the national production and to maintain the social rights of Syrian people and youth especially free education, free health care, and to find work opportunities, adequate housing of youth, to widen the democratic freedoms, and to achieve the students and workers youth demands.

Dear comrades:

Nowadays, when we are confronting the terrorist groups, massacres and sabotage actions that are organized by the mercenaries and supported by imperialism, we confirm our firm position:

No revolution with world imperialism. No revolution with NATO. No revolution with the reactionary regimes of mercenary and national treachery of rulers of gulf who steal the wealth of the people of Arab peninsula. No revolution with reactionary and treachery forces. Because a revolution that its first slogan is not the liberation of the land and face the imperialism and Zionism is not a revolution. A revolution who does not raise the banner of national independence and prevent external intervention is not a revolution.

We shall struggle against the terrorist groups and imperialist death machines, for independence and sovereignty, for the freedom of homeland and good life of people.

Our battle is long and hard, but we progress in the path of honorable struggle and we’ll win..
Homeland or Death!

Syrian Communist Youth Union
– Khaled Bagdash Youth-

[cynicles]

lol A stronghold against imperialism indeed.

[Let's Get Free]

Who cares if Assad loyally carries out the bidding of the Russian and Chinese capitalists, as long as he doesn't cozy up to American imperialism, right?!

[hetz]

Who cares if Assad loyally carries out the bidding of the Russian and Chinese capitalists, as long as he doesn't cozy up to American imperialism, right?!
And that would be what exactly? A Hungarian oil company owed more oilfields in Syria than all Russian and Chinese companies put together?
What is this bidding of the Russian and Chinese capitalists? What's their strategic interest in Syria? China gets much more oil from Sudan then it gets from Syria and Russia, god be praised, doesn't need oil.

[Let's Get Free]

And that would be what exactly? A Hungarian oil company owed more oilfields in Syria than all Russian and Chinese companies put together?
What is this bidding of the Russian and Chinese capitalists? What's their strategic interest in Syria? China gets much more oil from Sudan then it gets from Syria and Russia, god be praised, doesn't need oil.

China and Russia sees Syria as a remaining ally in a time where most states have tilted – or been forced – in the arms of US imperialism. Russia has a military naval base in Syria. Besides, Russia is worried about jihady movements on the southern border, and sees the officially secular Syrian regime as being on the same side in the fight against “Muslim fundamentalism”. All this, and probably more, makes Syria a junior part of an imperialist power bloc, led by Russia.

Defending Syria against the armed insurgency – even if we would accept that this insurgency is just a proxy force fighting for Western/ Saudi/Qatari interests – means siding with one wing of imperialism led from Moscow and Beijing against an admittedly even bigger one led from Washington. Siding with Assad is siding with imperialisms weaker wing. There is nothing remotely anti-imperialist, progressive or revolutionary about that choice.

[Futility Personified]

It's a bad situation, but if I were in their shoes, as bad as it sounds, i'd probably want to try and prevent Jihadis from having a large stake in the society I live in. Either that, or keep my head down and just try and keep away from the fighting as best as is possible. No working class gains from this conflict sadly.

[nativeabuse]

China and Russia sees Syria as a remaining ally in a time where most states have tilted – or been forced – in the arms of US imperialism. Russia has a military naval base in Syria. Besides, Russia is worried about jihady movements on the southern border, and sees the officially secular Syrian regime as being on the same side in the fight against “Muslim fundamentalism”. All this, and probably more, makes Syria a junior part of an imperialist power bloc, led by Russia.

Defending Syria against the armed insurgency – even if we would accept that this insurgency is just a proxy force fighting for Western/ Saudi/Qatari interests – means siding with one wing of imperialism led from Moscow and Beijing against an admittedly even bigger one led from Washington. Siding with Assad is siding with imperialisms weaker wing. There is nothing remotely anti-imperialist, progressive or revolutionary about that choice.

I don't understand why you seem so opposed to the logic of the whole 'lesser of two evils arguments' I'm trying to look at how the outcome will end up effecting workers in the country, and I think it is clear that the rebels are going to create a state that is more hostile to our cause than Assad's.

And this supposed influence/interest Russia has that you cite doesn't seem to be much of anything at all. Also, there is a difference between having an ally in a region and holding a nation captive to your will via imperialism. Even though France and America are allies they are not imperialistically controlling one another.

Is russia creating sweatshops in Syria?
Is Russia/China enslaving Syria with debt until it meets their demands?
Is Russia forcing Syria to sell off its natural resources to foreign investors?
What leverage, if any does Russia even have over them to make the Syrian government do anything it doesn't want to do?

These are just a few things I consider signs of imperialism, having an ally who has the same mutual interests in the region as you do is not imperialism. Where do you draw the line at what is imperialism and what is just normal foreign relations?

And furthermore, lets look at it this way, yes, this is simply a fight between the two large imperialist powers in the world, we all know that. But, why on earth wouldn't you want to support the two imperialist powers who had a population that has been ingrained with socialist ideologies for decades upon decades, whose people started the two biggest communist revolutions in history. If there is any imperial power I would want to come out on top wouldn't it be that one? Isn't that the imperial power with the most revolutionary potential for workers? Isn't that where class consciousness is going to be highest?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Regardless of which side wins, there will likely be a blood bath afterwards. Even if Assad wins his security forces are going to kill scores of workers as they root out 'traitors'.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

And furthermore, lets look at it this way, yes, this is simply a fight between the two large imperialist powers in the world, we all know that. But, why on earth wouldn't you want to support the two imperialist powers who had a population that has been ingrained with socialist ideologies for decades upon decades, whose people started the two biggest communist revolutions in history. If there is any imperial power I would want to come out on top wouldn't it be that one? Isn't that the imperial power with the most revolutionary potential for workers? Isn't that where class consciousness is going to be highest?

Interesting...you would pick that side because these countries have / had Communist Parties in power and were / are perceived to be communist.
"I support that wolf because it's at least got some sheep's clothing on"

Neither 'side', in my opinion, merit whole-hearted support and solidarity. It's up to the people on the ground anyway, all most of us can do is offer conjecture and opinion and some level of support to those who need it (Syrian workers).

[China studen]

Support the Syrian Communist Youth Union!
Against the imperialist interference in Syria!

[hetz]

China and Russia sees Syria as a remaining ally in a time where most states have tilted – or been forced – in the arms of US imperialism. Russia has a military naval base in Syria. Besides, Russia is worried about jihady movements on the southern border, and sees the officially secular Syrian regime as being on the same side in the fight against “Muslim fundamentalism”. All this, and probably more, makes Syria a junior part of an imperialist power bloc, led by Russia.That naval base isn't worth shit. It's just a small service base. Russia has enough problems keeping Sevastopol and Baikonur which are indeed strategically important to her interests, unlike Tartus.
If the Russians wanted to they could build a big naval base in Montenegro for example, half of which is owned by Russian oligarchs anyway. But why would they want to? Russian navy has been in constant decline for decades.
As for these "Jihadi" movements in Russia, I don't understand what Syria has to do with it? Caucausus countries border only Turkey and Iran.
And I don't see how can you talk of Syria being a part of the "Russian imperialist block"? What is this block? That block, at best, might include the Euroasian Economic Community countries and certain quasi-states like S. Ossetia and Abkhazia.



Defending Syria against the armed insurgency – even if we would accept that this insurgency is just a proxy force fighting for Western/ Saudi/Qatari interests – means siding with one wing of imperialism led from Moscow and Beijing against an admittedly even bigger one led from Washington. Siding with Assad is siding with imperialisms weaker wing. There is nothing remotely anti-imperialist, progressive or revolutionary about that choice.No it doesn't, because neither China nor Russia pay and train armed jihadists to wreck chaos in Syria, nor do they strive for deepening the civil war, because peace is in their best interests right now.

Anyway, it seems that ALL Syrian leftists now stand with the legitimate government against the rebels.
That fact speaks for itself.

[nativeabuse]

Interesting...you would pick that side because these countries have / had Communist Parties in power and were / are perceived to be communist.
"I support that wolf because it's at least got some sheep's clothing on"

Neither 'side', in my opinion, merit whole-hearted support and solidarity. It's up to the people on the ground anyway, all most of us can do is offer conjecture and opinion and some level of support to those who need it (Syrian workers).

Except you are misinterpreting what I have said. I am not supporting them because they claim to be communist. I'm not necessarily supporting them in the long run at all, it's a matter of strategically playing your opponents off one another rooting for the weaker one, hoping that it will win because then when it is your turn to fight it, you will be up against a weaker foe (Russia/China). See what I am saying at all?

"Isn't that the imperial power with the most revolutionary potential for workers? "
" Isn't that where class consciousness is going to be highest?"
"I'm trying to look at how the outcome will end up effecting workers in the country, and I think it is clear that the rebels are going to create a state that is more hostile to our cause than Assad's."

Because letting conservatives and nationalists take over countries and brainwash the citizenry is exactly what is conducive to revolution according to you apparently. According to you we should just stand by and watch it happen.

[ind_com]

Anyway, it seems that ALL Syrian leftists now stand with the legitimate government against the rebels.
That fact speaks for itself.

But let's not forget that these leftists are revisionist traitors. It is true that whoever does not hold the US backed terrorists to be the principal enemy of the Syrian masses is merely apologizing for imperialism, but Assad himself is a part of the imperialist world system as well. Therefore he is also an enemy of the Syrian masses. These so called left forces of Syria are parliamentary groups and benefit from legal movements in the system that Assad offers. So, they will never lead the proletariat in any armed struggle against capitalism, and hence are not revolutionaries. Any genuine leftist force should not fail to recognize this.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Lesser-evilism is the politics of fools. We shouldn't pretend for one moment that Russia doesn't have any imperial interests with regards to Syria, even if their naval base at Tartus isn't all it's cracked up to be by the mainstream media.

But in any case, it seems that both "sides" are acting like psychotic assholes in their own ways. Neither deserve the support of decent human beings, let alone people who claim to be revolutionary leftists.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

this has nothing to do with "lesser evilism", and why the hell would Assad murder workers labeled as "traitors"? if theres any massacre it will be amongst the remaining bourgeois, working everyday people are Bashar's powerbase alongside women, the youth, and religous and ethnic minorities. the fact that we are arguing about this is ridiculous

[IrishWorker]

Decent statement from the Syrian Communist Youth Union. I will publicize it on a few different forums I post on.

Civil Wars are messy business, see Libya, and can be confusing when we are bombarded constantly with pro NATO propaganda by the western media.

Here is a good tip when trying to form an opinion, whatever side NATO and the Jihadists are on, they are the bad guys. Whatever side the secular/progressive elements support ,they are the good guys.

[Sasha]

Decent statement from the Syrian Communist Youth Union. I will publicize it on a few different forums I post on.

Civil Wars are messy business, see Libya, and can be confusing when we are bombarded constantly with pro NATO propaganda by the western media.

Here is a good tip when trying to form an opinion, whatever side NATO and the Jihadists are on, they are the bad guys. Whatever side the secular/progressive elements support ,they are the good guys.

So about a year ago when the jihadist where still employed by Assad and Gadaffi's secretservice worked hand in glove with the CIA who where we supposed to "support" then?

Also, there are no progressive elements supporting Assad period...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

this has nothing to do with "lesser evilism", and why the hell would Assad murder workers labeled as "traitors"? if theres any massacre it will be amongst the remaining bourgeois, working everyday people are Bashar's powerbase alongside women, the youth, and religous and ethnic minorities. the fact that we are arguing about this is ridiculous

What's ridiculous is that you think the Syrian state is anything but an organ of bourgeois class rule. Lots of bourgeois states, regardless of whether or not they wrap themselves in red flags and leftish-sounding populism, claim the support of "working everyday people". That doesn't make it so.

[IrishWorker]

So about a year ago when the jihadist where still employed by Assad and Gadaffi's secretservice worked hand in glove with the CIA who where we supposed to "support" then?

Also, there are no progressive elements supporting Assad period...

Support neither.

Its all about how we define progressive mate. I would class the Syrian Communist Youth Union as a progressive element of Syrian society.

[Sasha]

Support neither.

Its all about how we define progressive mate. I would class the Syrian Communist Youth Union as a progressive element of Syrian society.

Lol at republicans calling stalinists locked in a united front with the bourgeois capital being progressive. anti-imp'ism is really becoming the definition of cognitive dissonance isn't it.

[IrishWorker]

Lol at republicans calling stalinists locked in a united front with the bourgeois capital being progressive. anti-imp'ism is really becoming the definition of cognitive dissonance isn't it.

Whatever mate I couldn't give two fucks what you think.

[Sasha]

Whatever mate I couldn't give two fucks what you think.

well i'm honestly interested how you reconcile your supposed non-sectarian republican socialism with this;

This took the form of the National Progressive Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Progressive_Front_%28Syria%29), established in 1972. Only parties participating in the Front would be allowed to operate: to join, they were required to accept the socialist and Arab nationalist orientation of the government. The Ba'th Party was guaranteed leadership of the Front and the new constitution, promulgated the same year, provided that it would "lead society and the state". Furthermore, only the Ba'th would be allowed operate in the armed forces and among university students.i understand that political repression is no fun at all but even sinfein stayed more true to their socialism and sold less out to repression than the so called communist parties of syria.

also i wonder how under these conditions the Ba'thist government can ever be called "legitimate" as is repeatedly done by the anti-imps...

[hetz]

Lol at republicans calling stalinists locked in a united front with the bourgeois capital being progressive. A socialist party is progressive by definition.
Yes, if you're fighting for democracy against becoming an islamic puppet state then you're progressive.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anyway, it seems that ALL Syrian leftists now stand with the legitimate government against the rebels.
That fact speaks for itself.

And what legitimises this brutal government exactly? Because a few reactionary egg hack fucks who - in typical democratic fashion - anoint themselves as 'the left' support it?

When were the last elections in this country?

The lack of a clear alternative doesn't legitimise the incumbent. If that were the case, then using this logic we should support every single incumbent government all over the world, including the likes of Obama and Merkel.

You sit there and moralise about 'lesser evilism' but on the ground, Assad is a brutal fuck and so is his entire cabal of murderous, anti-worker scumbags.

In sum: if Assad is going to kill basically every revolution/reform-seeking worker anyway, then what do we gain from supporting him aside from being able to say that 'we oppose anti-imperialism'? What the fuck does that count for when Assad's, realistically, gonna kill all the workers anyway?

[hetz]

What's funny is that there isn't a smallest sect of "communists" of any sort in Syria that is pro-rebel and anti-government. Not even a proverbial dozen of sectarians.


You sit there and moralise about 'lesser evilism' but on the ground, Assad is a brutal fuck and so is his entire cabal of murderous, anti-worker scumbags.Lol the rebels are murdering every communist they can find, and slaughtering all those who oppose them or who happen to be a minority of any kind.


if Assad is going to kill basically every revolution/reform-seeking worker anyway
That's nonsense.

[Tjis]

Who is this group? What is their ideology? Are they independent communists, or aligned to one of the communist parties in Syria? Googling their name just returns references to this statement.

[Sasha]

A socialist party is progressive by definition.


based on real world experience from about the 1940's on i would hazard the guess that any self declared "socialist party" is reactionary by definition.

[Sasha]

Who is this group? What is their ideology? Are they independent communists, or aligned to one of the communist parties in Syria? Googling their name just returns references to this statement.


i believe they are the youth group of what was the anti-perestroika split of the Syrian communist party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Communist_Party
so they are part of the governing NPF; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Progressive_Front_%28Syria%29

[hetz]

based on real world experience from about the 1940's on i would hazard the guess that any self declared "socialist party" is reactionary by definition.
Social democratic/eurocommunist parties of the old type were not reactionary.

[Sasha]

Social democratic/eurocommunist parties of the old type were not reactionary.

that might be debatable but they sure as hell weren't socialist...

[Geiseric]

Social Democrats in like the 1800s weren't reactionary, after WW1 the bureaucracies in charge of their parties, such as Plekhanov and Kautsky, sure were though.

Anyways, realistically, the islamists are only capable of what the NATO imperialists say it is, it's on their leash in the same way that Assad is on the leash of Russia and China. Any nuance agruments aside, geopolitically Syria has been reactionary, just look at their role in the Intifada's.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Any "Communist" which goes on about how a state (let alone a pro-capitalist state) is "legitimate" is contradicting their own supposed ideological assumptions. States are not "legitimate" or "illegitimate", they make themselves seem "legitimate" by applying force, and they do so in the interests of particular economic classes. I guess we've come a long way from states being something we want to "wither away"?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What's funny is that there isn't a smallest sect of "communists" of any sort in Syria that is pro-rebel and anti-government. Not even a proverbial dozen of sectarians.

Lol the rebels are murdering every communist they can find, and slaughtering all those who oppose them or who happen to be a minority of any kind.


That's nonsense.

And the government aren't murdering the communists why? If they were communists, then the government would kill them for opposing the government - all governments, all states, in the long-term. If the government aren't killing them, they're probably supporting the government and ergo aren't communists.

Why else would communists support a non-progressive dictatorship like Assads? Because the rebels are worse? I don't think so.

[Paul Cockshott]

And the government aren't murdering the communists why? If they were communists, then the government would kill them for opposing the government - all governments, all states, in the long-term. If the government aren't killing them, they're probably supporting the government and ergo aren't communists.

Why else would communists support a non-progressive dictatorship like Assads? Because the rebels are worse? I don't think so.

easy for you to say that since you are not faced by a Salafist takeover where you live.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

easy for you to say that since you are not faced by a Salafist takeover where you live.

That would be fair enough for an individual to say, as I do understand the human element - the fear factor. But for a supposedly 'communist' organisation to come out with such tripe is cowardly and goes against everything we believe in.

[hetz]

And the government aren't murdering the communists why?
Well why aren't you being taken to a FEMA camp?
Why didn't the government of the Spanish Republic kill PCE/POUM members?
Certain communists are in the coalition, why would the government want to kill them? They have much more dangerous enemies to deal with.


If they were communists, then the government would kill them for opposing the government - all governments, all states, in the long-term. If the government aren't killing them, they're probably supporting the government and ergo aren't communists.
That's just an epic fail in thinking.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well why aren't you being taken to a FEMA camp?
Why didn't the government of the Spanish Republic kill PCE/POUM members?
Certain communists are in the coalition, why would the government want to kill them? They have much more dangerous enemies to deal with.

That's what's so pathetic (emboldened). At a time of regional revolution and civil war, it's the communists who AREN'T fighting for revolution, but for the status quo.


That's just an epic fail in thinking.

See above.

[hetz]

That's what's so pathetic (emboldened). At a time of regional revolution and civil war, it's the communists who AREN'T fighting for revolution, but for the status quo.
Yep and in Spain we didn't fight for a revolution, even the CNT were counterrevolutionary class-traitors because they participated in the government and the Ejercito Popular.
Is it so hard to imagine that fighting for a democratic republic against fascism of any sort ( or being an islamis puppet state ) is already revolutionary?
You think you could even TALK about communism ( not to mention have more-less independent communist organizations ) in a post-"Assadist" Syria?
Communists will be slaughtered and thrown to the dogs ( which is BTW one of the rebels' favorite methods of dealith with the "undesirables" ) if these jihadists win.
We are fighting for a revolution because we are fighting against imperialist puppets. If they win then all is lost.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yep and in Spain we didn't fight for a revolution, even the CNT were counterrevolutionary class-traitors because they participated in the government and the Ejercito Popular.
Is it so hard to imagine that fighting for a democratic republic against fascism of any sort ( or being an islamis puppet state ) is already revolutionary?
You think you could even TALK about communism ( not to mention have more-less independent communist organizations ) in a post-"Assadist" Syria?
Communists will be slaughtered and thrown to the dogs ( which is BTW one of the rebels' favorite methods of dealith with the "undesirables" ) if these jihadists win.
We are fighting for a revolution because we are fighting against imperialist puppets. If they win then all is lost.

Democratic republics, though, tend to hold elections instead of referenda, and tend not to be unabashedly nepotistic. Just saying. :thumbup1:

[hetz]

Yeah but in democratic republics you don't get killed like a dog because you're a communist. That's why you can talk on revleft as much as you want and no one's gonna hurt you.
But the fate of Syrian communists, in case these rebels win, is pretty clear. So yeah, I stand with leftist comrades, because common sense tells me they know the best about the situation in their own country.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You've not really answered my criticism. Your initial point - referencing Spain - was that we should fight a 'united front' when a (presumably) bourgeois democratic republic is threatened with the spectre of fascism.

But Assad's Syria is not a democratic republic, it is a dictatorship. So why are we defending it? Your point doesn't follow.

[Let's Get Free]

what,like isreal?

Well, the Syrian army was quite bad at fighting Israel, but quite damn good at repressing Palestinians in Lebanon, just as it is quite the expert at bombing the crap out of the bakeries and residential ares in Damascus and Aleppo these days.

[hetz]

But Assad's Syria is not a democratic republic, it is a dictatorship.
That's just empty rhetorics. Syria is more democratic than the Russian Federation, supposedly a republic.
It is ruled by a democratic coalition of progressive forces, the most progressive of which are of course communists. If it were a dictatorship ( like Saudi Arabia ) then this could not be possible .

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's just empty rhetorics. Syria is more democratic than the Russian Federation, supposedly a republic.
It is ruled by a democratic coalition of progressive forces, the most progressive of which are of course communists. If it were a dictatorship ( like Saudi Arabia ) then this could not be possible .

So the communists participate in a government where the President runs unopposed in elections, is the son of the previous President, legalised private banking and loosened other private sector financial controls and presides over an economy where 30% of people live below the poverty line?

So tell me, what exactly is progressive about this Assad government? No elections, no progressive policies, no positive end in sight for workers. And no, 'they're less bad than the salafists' isn't good enough for a guy who's been in power for how many years now?

[hetz]

So the communists participate in a government where the President runs unopposed in elections, is the son of the previous President, legalised private banking and loosened other private sector financial controls and presides over an economy where 30% of people live below the poverty line?Yeah, that's pretty much what the Cuban C. Party did. Or the Cypriot or the Moldovan ones...
Anyway Assad wanted peace talks which the rebels refused.
Communists are not yet in a position to become the leading power in Syrian politics, that much is obvious.


So tell me, what exactly is progressive about this Assad government?It's a popular government opposed to Syria becoming an imperialist puppet state.
And yeah, Syria is much more progressive than for example "democratic" Turkey, which is pretty much a semi-fascist state, waging a war on the Kurds and democratic opposition inside the country.
The ruling coalition is a progressive one, I don't even know how you can deny that when NO Syrian leftists deny it.
Of course it's not a socialist country, but neither is Bolivia, Venezuela and so on.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=hetz;2558200]Yeah, that's pretty much what the Cuban C. Party did. Or the Cypriot or the Moldovan ones...
Anyway Assad wanted peace talks which the rebels refused.

What are you on about the Cubans and Moldovans (???) for?? :S



Communists are not yet in a position to become the leading power in Syrian politics, that much is obvious.

Well, i'm not going to become the communist luminary leading the British working class to revolution tomorrow, shall I join the Labour Party instead?


It's a popular government opposed to Syria becoming an imperialist puppet state.

No we've been through this. It's not a popular government because it doesn't hold elections or any sort of referenda on the government's popularity. It's a nepotistic dictatorship.

And yeah, Syria is much more progressive than for example "democratic" Turkey, which is pretty much a semi-fascist state, waging a war on the Kurds and democratic opposition inside the country.

No, Turkey is in no war a 'semi-fascist' state. Whilst I despise the policies of Erdogan and his like, he at least holds elections. It is a moderate-Islamic bourgeois democracy. Syria is a dictatorship and has a nepotistic President.

The ruling coalition is a progressive one, I don't even know how you can deny that when NO Syrian leftists deny it.

The Syrian 'leftists' don't deny it because they'd rather be part of some 'progressive' coalition than be proper communists.


Of course it's not a socialist country, but neither is Bolivia, Venezuela and so on.

The social-democratic parties in Bolivia and Venezuela are popular governments though, as they hold democratic elections regularly, and win regularly. The same cannot be said for Assad. That you like his politics doesn't make them democratic or progressive.

Besides, we are communists. Our interests are not in supporting 'progressives', but the working class. It's quite easy to see that Assad has done very little in his long period in power to suggest he'll ever be pro-worker.

[Geiseric]

Yep and in Spain we didn't fight for a revolution, even the CNT were counterrevolutionary class-traitors because they participated in the government and the Ejercito Popular.
Is it so hard to imagine that fighting for a democratic republic against fascism of any sort ( or being an islamis puppet state ) is already revolutionary?
You think you could even TALK about communism ( not to mention have more-less independent communist organizations ) in a post-"Assadist" Syria?
Communists will be slaughtered and thrown to the dogs ( which is BTW one of the rebels' favorite methods of dealith with the "undesirables" ) if these jihadists win.
We are fighting for a revolution because we are fighting against imperialist puppets. If they win then all is lost.


Lesser evilism is trash logic. I guess we should of supported Obama against crazy reactionary mormon mitt romney as well right? Ask Palestinians what they think of the entire Ba`athist movement, and look up what the Syrian army did in the second Infitada, and tell me how "progressive," it actually is. Oh it's so progressive having a russian military base in the country as well!

[Tim Cornelis]

The ruling coalition is a progressive one, I don't even know how you can deny that when NO Syrian leftists deny it.

Comrade, this is a pathetic appeal to authority. One that is even wrong, as I've shown you before, which you apparently thought was too confronting you felt it was best to ignore this inconvenient truth. Do you honestly believe that every single Syrian leftist supports Assad?

Marxist-Leninist and anti-capitalist parties that oppose the Assad regime outnumber the Marxist-Leninist parties that support the regime.


Syrian Communist Party (Unified) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Communist_Party_(Unified)) and Syrian Communist Party (Bakdash) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Communist_Party_(Bakdash)) support the regime.

The Communist Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Labour_Party_(Syria)) and the Arab Revolutionary Workers Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolutionary_Workers_Party), the Democratic Union Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)) and the People's Will Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People’s_Will_Party) all oppose the Assad regime.

You can read on the wikipedia page of the Communist Labour Party the following:

"The party, banned by the government of Syria since its establishment, was victim to a number of crackdowns, where 200 of its members were arrested in 1986 alone.[1] 21 members were sentenced by the Supreme State Security Court for "membership in a secret organization created to change the economic or social structure of the state".[3]

A government that arrests communists for wanting to change the economic and social structure of the state, how progressive indeed!

On the wikipedia page of the Arab Revolutionary Workers' Party you can read:

"The party rejected the Ba'athist ideology of Michel Aflaq as reactionary and backward-looking. Instead the party opted for scientific socialism."

That doesn't sound like these particular leftists consider the Ba'athist party progressive at all as you claimed.



That's just empty rhetorics. Syria is more democratic than the Russian Federation, supposedly a republic

Russia is secretly a monarchy? Anyway, Russia is a corrupt democracy, but Syria is not a democracy at all.


It is ruled by a democratic coalition of progressive forces, the most progressive of which are of course communists.

It is not democratic. The National Progressive Front has always reserved a majority of seats which it claims without any electoral interference. Of the minority of seats that can be elected, fraud is used in favour of the National Progressive Front.

This was the situation before May 5 2012 before Syria supposedly became a multi-party democracy. Yet 90% of the elected representatives support the Assad regime, and of the 10% that oppose him many still fall in line with the Arab nationalist and (bourgeois) socialist paradigm, such as the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party) and the Syrian Democratic People's Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_People's_Party). That result is too amazing to be true, and it is. Syria is a phony democracy.

If you honestly believed that a free and fair election would put 90 to 95% of the legislative seats in the hands of left-wing, secular, Arab nationalists, then why do pro-Assad folk keep insisting there is going the be an Islamist takeover, Salafist even?


If it were a dictatorship ( like Saudi Arabia ) then this could not be possible .

It is not possible for multiple parties to have representation in legislative chambers in a dictatorship? There are more variants of dictatorships than the one-party variant. I suppose this would make China, North Korea, Belarus, and Angola more democratic than Russia as well. Perhaps it's best if you don't answer that.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd rather have a stable dictorship government than an unstable Islamic dictatorship that kills anyone who disobeys Sharia Law.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah but in democratic republics you don't get killed like a dog because you're a communist. That's why you can talk on revleft as much as you want and no one's gonna hurt you.
But the fate of Syrian communists, in case these rebels win, is pretty clear. So yeah, I stand with leftist comrades, because common sense tells me they know the best about the situation in their own country.

While I understand the bloody history of interactions between communists and radical Islamists, you haven't really convinced me that Assad's Syria is a "democratic state". You mentioned other nominally democratic republics like Bolivia, etc. The difference between Bolivia and Syria is that, when protestors were getting shot in Bolivia over the planned highway there, Evo Morales called a referendum on the issue. I see no indication that Syria is the same sort of state, honestly. Protestors were getting murdered in Syria well before the conflict developed into what it is today, a phenomenon that happened in basically every "Arab Spring" state...in Tunisia, in Yemen, in Egypt, in Iraq, in eastern Saudi Arabia, in Bahrain, in Libya etc....as far as I know the only state that didn't respond to initial protests with idiotic violence and brute suppression was Jordan, or at least not on the level of the other countries mentioned.

But maybe I'm supposed to believe that this was all just the work of terrorists and saboteurs?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'd rather have a stable dictorship government than an unstable Islamic dictatorship that kills anyone who disobeys Sharia Law.

Fine, you're entitled to your right to support dictatorship, but don't deign such governments as 'legitimate' or 'popular', and certainly don't try to do so on behalf of 'the left'.

[hashem]

this is not a statement by Syrian communists.

both of Syrian legal "communist" parties are bourgeois parties. there is no reason to believe they are better than "communist" party of Iraq which is servant of imperialism or Tudeh party of Iran which supported mass executions against communists.

they and their "brothers" are completely anti revolutionary in all countries.

a true communist only refers to them in order to study strategy and tactics of anti revolution.

[Sir Comradical]

this is not a statement by Syrian communists.

both of Syrian legal "communist" parties are bourgeois parties. there is no reason to believe they are better than "communist" party of Iraq which is servant of imperialism or Tudeh party of Iran which supported mass executions against communists.

they and their "brothers" are completely anti revolutionary in all countries.

a true communist only refers to them in order to study strategy and tactics of anti revolution.

So where are these real communists in Syria? In this war, on the side of the government there's the Progressive Front made up of Baath Party and other social-democratic and nominally socialist and communist parties, and the Popular Front (parliamentary opposition) made of a nominally socialist party in an alliance with the SSNP. On the side of the armed opposition you have islamists, islamists, and more islamists. So no, these Syrian communists may not be the perfect communists to the holier-than-thou first world left, but the fact that pretty much every single "left" political entity supports the Syrian Army against the rebels should be enough to counter the pro-imperialist, pro-FSA cheerleading so endemic among the degenerate imperial "left".

[hashem]

So where are these real communists in Syria?


pretty much every single "left" political entity supports the Syrian Army against the rebels

these are all lies. not a single Syrian or non Syrian leftist supports the Syrian Army against the rebels.

communists are banned in Syrian and are struggling against the government. for example:

Communist Labour Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Labour_Party)
Arab Revolutionary Workers Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolutionary_Workers_Party)
Arab Communist Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Communist_Party)

legal revisionists (Khalid Bakdash and Yusuf Faisal factions) are not leftists at all. the term "revisionist" doesnt totally expose their nature. they are servants of a fascist state. Baath parties are arabic Nazi parties. those legal factions have done nothing and can do nothing against Assad dynasty.

[Sir Comradical]

these are all lies. not a single Syrian or non Syrian leftist supports the Syrian Army against the rebels.

communists are banned in Syrian and are struggling against the government. for example:

Communist Labour Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Labour_Party)
Arab Revolutionary Workers Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolutionary_Workers_Party)
Arab Communist Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Communist_Party)

legal revisionists (Khalid Bakdash and Yusuf Faisal factions) are not leftists at all. the term "revisionist" doesnt totally expose their nature. they are servants of a fascist state. Baath parties are arabic Nazi parties. those legal factions have done nothing and can do nothing against Assad dynasty.

Noted. However the Arab Communist Party has no base and is pretty much defunct. The other two are part of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change which has no armed power at all. The opposition with the guns and money are the Islamists. Given this reality, these communists will soon either be co-opted by the government which wants to negotiate with the non-Islamist opposition, or if the FSA wins, they'll be slaughtered by the Islamists. For their own sake, and because they don't have any armed strength, they'd be better off joining the mainstream reform process.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't understand why you seem so opposed to the logic of the whole 'lesser of two evils arguments'

I don't know about Gladiator, but I have no problem with the logic of "lesser evil", and indeed not even with the idea of supporting the lesser evil. Where I am having trouble is in the part where I should be seeing Butcher Assad as the lesser evil.

Luís Henrique

[Sheepy]

While a religious fundamentalist takeover is surely frightening, The Boss is right: lesser evilism is bullshit. Instead of choosing which blood thirsty psychopath you'd think would be the least likely candidate willing to kill you, the best alternative would be taking advantage of the situation. Much like the Syrian Kurds, who took up arms with the PYD and started to take their territories back from both the Assad government and the FSA terrorists.

For any hope in Syria as a whole, the banned socialist and communist parties need to take action, rather than sit about.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

this may not be entirely relevant but, just to clarify: the Assads/ Syrian Ba'ath party do no uphold Michel Aflaq, they descend from a rival current of Ba'athism formulated by Zaki Al Arsuzi . Michel Aflaq explicitly rejected Hafez al Assad's legitimacy and considered Al Arsuzi a thief. He was, however, a vocal supporter, close friend, and mentor to Saddam Hussein; from the late 60's onward he served as the ideologue of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party until his death in 1989.

[Sir Comradical]

this may not be entirely relevant but, just to clarify: the Assads/ Syrian Ba'ath party do no uphold Michel Aflaq, they descend from a rival current of Ba'athism formulated by Zaki Al Arsuzi . Michel Aflaq explicitly rejected Hafez al Assad's legitimacy and considered Al Arsuzi a thief. He was, however, a vocal supporter, close friend, and mentor to Saddam Hussein; from the late 60's onward he served as the ideologue of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party until his death in 1989.

What were the ideological differences between Arsuzi and Aflaq?

[Geiseric]

You've not really answered my criticism. Your initial point - referencing Spain - was that we should fight a 'united front' when a (presumably) bourgeois democratic republic is threatened with the spectre of fascism.

But Assad's Syria is not a democratic republic, it is a dictatorship. So why are we defending it? Your point doesn't follow.

Even if it was a bourgeois republic, its our task to support the working class's struggle for socialism, not to play the bullshit, opportunist game of bourgeois political revolution.

[RisingSun]

I don't know about Gladiator, but I have no problem with the logic of "lesser evil", and indeed not even with the idea of supporting the lesser evil. Where I am having trouble is in the part where I should be seeing Butcher Assad as the lesser evil.

Luís Henrique

Assad has kept the country in relative stability and balance since he became President. Under his leadership, Iran has passed weapons through Syria to the Lebanese resistance. It strongly supports the Palestinians in their struggle for justice.

If he was deposed, his replacements would be fanatical sectarians who would massacre minority groups. Syria would become another slave state in the Middle East that supported the imperialists.

[Sasha]

So let me get this straight, when the Muslim brotherhood (and their even more religious fundamentalist Shiite counterpart) shoots at Israeli's its called the "resistance" fighting for "justice" but when those same MBs shoot at Assads troops they are "fanatical sectarians who would massacre minority groups. Syria would become another slave state in the Middle East that supported the imperialists"?
Do you take medicine for that massive cognitive dissonance or what?

Assad and Iran do not give a monkey's arse for "palestinian justice" they are just an smaller imperialist faction of capital, one that shoots workers instead of paying them off.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Muslim Brotherhood really does seem to have it's hands in everything in the middle east, or at least if the MB in Syria is part of the same movement as the MB in Egypt. (and which spawned Hamas, prominent leadership within Al Qaeda, etc)

[Geiseric]

Assad has kept the country in relative stability and balance since he became President. Under his leadership, Iran has passed weapons through Syria to the Lebanese resistance. It strongly supports the Palestinians in their struggle for justice.

If he was deposed, his replacements would be fanatical sectarians who would massacre minority groups. Syria would become another slave state in the Middle East that supported the imperialists.

You're clueless, the Syrian army crushed the second intifada in Lebanon. Assad has supported every imperialist incursion in the middle east.

[Rafiq]

Risingsun, tell that to the all the palestinian refugees that were massacred

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Fourth Internationalist]

Fine, you're entitled to your right to support dictatorship, but don't deign such governments as 'legitimate' or 'popular', and certainly don't try to do so on behalf of 'the left'.

I don't support dictatorship. I just think that if I were to choose to live under Assad or under Moslem extremists, I would rather live under Assad. Thus I support his regime against the Moslem extremists. How anyone cannot amazes me.

[Red Banana]

I don't support dictatorship. I just think that if I were to choose to live under Assad or under Moslem extremists, I would rather live under Assad. Thus I support his regime against the Moslem extremists. How anyone cannot amazes me.

We manage. Us communists find a way to oppose both sides of an intra-Capital war, crazy right?

[Devrim]

So let me get this straight, when the Muslim brotherhood (and their even more religious fundamentalist Shiite counterpart) shoots at Israeli's its called the "resistance" fighting for "justice" but when those same MBs shoot at Assads troops they are "fanatical sectarians who would massacre minority groups. Syria would become another slave state in the Middle East that supported the imperialists"?
Do you take medicine for that massive cognitive dissonance or what?

It is a bit off topic, but I was just wonering why you think they are more religious.

Devrim

[Fourth Internationalist]

We manage. Us communists find a way to oppose both sides of an intra-Capital war, crazy right?

Yes that is crazy. Very crazy.

[Raúl Duke]

I really dislike threads like these (however, by no means construe that I'm saying you shouldn't be discussing this stuff; it's your prerogative and this forum is meant to discuss such matters) because in the end it seems like a pointless shouting match of sorts where one seems to be obligated, in a way, to support a side even if deep down we all know (or at least I hope, I hope no one has illusions about either side; but sometimes I really doubt if people here are as reasonable and level-headed sometimes) both sides frankly are rotten deals for the people.

Another aspect of its pointlessness is that in the bigger picture all we got here are a bunch of usually foreign (to the situation) leftist talking about what basically amounts to "which side is better, which side we should support" when such voicing of approval for one side or the other really amounts to nothing for both sides in question (Particularly when leftists and organizations say they "support" a side when really usually means nothing, it's not like they're sending actual material support or something).

Lastly, it's a given that generally the left doesn't support direct imperialist incursions into these places which I guess is a good position to have. But in practice (activism-wise), the position to oppose imperialist incursions seems to have very little real world effect: If an imperialist country really wanted to go fuck shit up I doubt a few protests and demos would changed their mind really (after all, the anti-war movement concerning Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to have been quite generally ineffective and to apparently dissapear after Obama got elected, repeating the old LBJ mistake I guess. The 60s anti-war movement in comparison was arguably effective in the sense that it permeated into the military causing dissension and lowering the effectiveness of the US military, but that was a time when many were draftees compared to now).

[Sasha]

It is a bit off topic, but I was just wonering why you think they are more religious.

Devrim

I would say that in the MB (though in lesser case in hammas) the conservative-capitalist buisnessnen call the shots while with Hezbollah the clergy still has more tangiable power...

[Devrim]

I would say that in the MB (though in lesser case in hammas) the conservative-capitalist buisnessnen call the shots while with Hezbollah the clergy still has more tangiable power...

I think that they are quite different things though. Yes, the clergy perhaps has more power in Hezbollah, but I don't think it is more religious. I have friends in Hezbollah who I would go out for a beer with. As well as being a Shia religious thing, it is also something that is part of coming from a Shia background in a country where religious sectarianism is so dominant. To me the Muslim Brotherhood has always seemed more religious. I can't imagine going out for a drink with any of them.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

I really dislike threads like these (however, by no means construe that I'm saying you shouldn't be discussing this stuff; it's your prerogative and this forum is meant to discuss such matters) because in the end it seems like a pointless shouting match of sorts where one seems to be obligated, in a way, to support a side even if deep down we all know (or at least I hope, I hope no one has illusions about either side; but sometimes I really doubt if people here are as reasonable and level-headed sometimes) both sides frankly are rotten deals for the people.

Another aspect of its pointlessness is that in the bigger picture all we got here are a bunch of usually foreign (to the situation) leftist talking about what basically amounts to "which side is better, which side we should support" when such voicing of approval for one side or the other really amounts to nothing for both sides in question (Particularly when leftists and organizations say they "support" a side when really usually means nothing, it's not like they're sending actual material support or something).

Lastly, it's a given that generally the left doesn't support direct imperialist incursions into these places which I guess is a good position to have. But in practice (activism-wise), the position to oppose imperialist incursions seems to have very little real world effect: If an imperialist country really wanted to go fuck shit up I doubt a few protests and demos would changed their mind really (after all, the anti-war movement concerning Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to have been quite generally ineffective and to apparently dissapear after Obama got elected, repeating the old LBJ mistake I guess. The 60s anti-war movement in comparison was arguably effective in the sense that it permeated into the military causing dissension and lowering the effectiveness of the US military, but that was a time when many were draftees compared to now).

You think that leftists as a given oppose imperialist incursions? Not true, there are heads of "parties," like Socialist Action who didn't want to include Afghanistan on the program of an anti war movement, because it would alienate pro obama liberals.

But a real anti war movement containing direct action and interior sabotage doesn't exist and hasn't since the 60's. There was a huge anti war upsurge at least in California in the U.S. at the beginning of Iraq, but the liberals co opted the organizing machinery, this is more proof than anything that Communists need to be in charge of the anti war movement if we want to revive it.

I already know that there are people on this forum, who should be banned unconditionally, for supporting the franch invasion of Mali going on as we speak.

[Sasha]

I think that they are quite different things though. Yes, the clergy perhaps has more power in Hezbollah, but I don't think it is more religious. I have friends in Hezbollah who I would go out for a beer with. As well as being a Shia religious thing, it is also something that is part of coming from a Shia background in a country where religious sectarianism is so dominant. To me the Muslim Brotherhood has always seemed more religious. I can't imagine going out for a drink with any of them.

Devrim


good points, though maybe actually because they are more into it with integrity and conviction, i'm fine with some of the neighboorhood kids who are (close to) the salafists or shia versions of that, they respect me so i respect them. they also really have a live and let live attitude, while they may personally oppose homosexuality and feminism etc they would never harras people let alone assault. its the "moderate" islamic "conservatives" of the miligorus, the hyper nationalist greywolves and the king of marocco loyalists i get into conflict with.
most of the salafi's remind me always a lot more of the amish than the evangelical-right

[Sasha]

palestine orlebanon is a national issue,not ideological etc.
-which mb's in syria?how is hizbollah etc shooting at isreali soldiers and cops, and salafistjihadists in syria comparable??

Sigh, because contrary to the myths the anti-imps here ar so enthusiasticly creating these are some important facts;
The majority of the broad opposition is secular or moderate islamic.
The majority of the armed opposition are domestic MB sunni and not international jihadist
Those MB brigades get military advise, training and support from Hamas (its pretty sad and speaks volumes when Hamas deserts Assad faster out of principled disgust than some supposed "leftists")
Of the minority of international jihadists the majority are specialised brigades consisting of suni veterans of the Iraqi insurgency (another group brought in to Syria by Assad himself and previously enthusiasticly cheered by the anti-imps here)

It's baffeling how you anti-imps always try to make a very grey world so dogmatic black and white, esp when your own "tendency" is such an important contributing factor in muddling the whole geo-political stage in an opportunistic mess.

[Sasha]

Also, you really don't think that for the vast majority of the rebel fighters this isn't a national struggle? You really think they are there risking their lives and that of all their family and friends to establish a some caliphate? They just want the butcher Assad and his regime gone, if there was a Egypt style military coup today that disposed Assad and prommised constitutional reform and popular elections the vast majority of the rebels would lay down their arms.

[Sasha]

"..the majority of the rebels are secular or moderate...??"i cant take you as serious.


as opposed to taking you seriously when you obviously and intentionally misquote, i said broad opposition, not rebels.


no its no 'national struggle'-is syria occupied or being bombed by another country?? it a civil war ,along with the foreign jihadists as u mentioned.


very funny, you dont always need foreigners to liberate your country from, domestic tyrants are pretty common too. the declarations of the FSA and the broader opposition in general speak only of national-liberation, that this "national liberation" in this case is uncomfortable to someone like you who normally gets a big fat hard on for anyone uttering those words doesnt matter..


as for" some caliphate" and the rest of your misinfo.you know better admin,you read arabic ?you tell me..

i'll take my sources in the syrian refugee community and Lebanese anarchists anytime over the (arabic) media...

but hey, it sure was nice to see the handful of leftover dutch ML's cheering the neo-nazi speakers at the (luckily minuscule) pro-Assad demo a while back in the hague, you would have fitted right in.

[Sasha]

n.b. altho u are admin psycho, it shouldnt give you the licence to try and insult everyone.


dude, if i abused my admin position i would have banned you ages ago. dont play those cheap games, its pathetic.

and i dont insult everyone, i insult you, a pathetic anti-semite and reactionary who is to cowardly to come out for his disgusting positions and the through and through un-leftist, un-revolutionary tendency you chose to present of propping up bourgeois anti-worker capital as long as it nominally throws arround the words socialism and anti-imperialism occasionally while butchering its proletariat.

but go a head, call me names again through the repsystem instead of engaging me in the open...

[X5N]

Red Youth, standing shoulder to shoulder with our comrades in the Syrian Communist Youth Union reproduce the statement of the revolutionary Syrian youth who stand with the legitimate government of the Syrian people and the President Bashar al-Assad against the imperialist-backed forces of reaction and obscurantism.

Stopped reading there.

Supporting an autocratic government led by a murderous dictator is antithetical to revolutionary socialism.

[Ostrinski]

My god, it'd be one thing if they thought that perhaps they had better prospects politically under an Assad regime than under an opposition government but you don't have to carry around portraits of the man. The fuck.

[Luís Henrique]

but you don't have to carry around portraits of the man.

I think they quite probably have to. Or at least that it is infinitely wiser to do so than not.

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he best alternative would be taking advantage of the situation. Much like the Syrian Kurds, who took up arms with the PYD and started to take their territories back from both the Assad government and the FSA terrorists.


Separatism is not the answer.





We manage. Us communists find a way to oppose both sides of an intra-Capital war, crazy right?


It's not this easy, as with the situation in Mali -- global geopolitical pressures are centering on Syria right now, from the momentum / friction out of the Arab Spring.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You think that leftists as a given oppose imperialist incursions? Not true, there are heads of "parties," like Socialist Action who didn't want to include Afghanistan on the program of an anti war movement, because it would alienate pro obama liberals.

I make an active effort not to interfere in the inter-working of the various Trotskyist groups, but this is simply wrong: Socialist Action has always included Afghanistan on the anti-war platform and advocated for withdrawal from there, never lacking voice for their position.

A strolling glance at their absurdly long articles section will tell you that...

http://socialistaction.org/?s=Afghanistan

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Separatism is not the answer.





Why? Because of "internationalism"?

Yea, let's ignore the legitmate demands of Kurds who just don't want to be slaughtered because of "Internationalism". Because solidarity is totally about opposing the wishes of the people because they are in contradiction with theoretical bullshit. Let's take this logic further. Participate in the civil rights struggle? Nah! That won't end capitalism. And besides, identity politics is "subsitutionist" and therefore theoretical heresy. Oppose everything the people want because it won't bring the end of capitalism! The only thing that will bring the end of capitalism will be lecturing the masses about how revisionist they are while getting together with your college bodies to form the only True Rrrrrevolutionary Communist Party where the vanguard of five proletarians and their dogs all can pay homage to the glorious and holy works of Karl Marx without any fear of that blasphemous idea of trying to apply them to reality.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Is there any party that stands for annihilation of Capital in Syria? I support it.

[ckaihatsu]

Why? Because of "internationalism"?




Yea, let's ignore the legitmate demands of Kurds who just don't want to be slaughtered because of "Internationalism".


I mean to point to the hazards of recreating capitalist class relations merely on smaller scales. Some parts of geographic Kurdistan are as bourgeois and developed as any major Western city.





Because solidarity is totally about opposing the wishes of the people because they are in contradiction with theoretical bullshit.


You're unwittingly providing rhetoric that advances the rule of petty capital, if 'solidarity' and 'the wishes of the people' equate to political support for a Kurdish nationalist leadership.





Let's take this logic further. Participate in the civil rights struggle? Nah! That won't end capitalism.


Okay, so you're implying that I'm ultra-left and too dismissive of here-and-now, incremental positive efforts. That's simply a strawman argument and thoroughly misconstrues my position.





And besides, identity politics is "subsitutionist" and therefore theoretical heresy. Gay marriage? Oppose that because it involves marriage and is therefore theoretical heresy! Oppose everything the people want because it won't bring the end of capitalism!


Identity politics is what *results* from the overall political contradictions of the system itself -- *no one*, including liberals, argues for identity-group-based *hegemony* for its own sake. (Likewise, consider the emergence of the policy of affirmative action.)





The only thing that will bring the end of capitalism will be lecturing the masses about how revisionist they are while getting together with your college bodies to form the only True Rrrrrevolutionary Communist Party where the vanguard of five proletarians and their dogs all can pay homage to the glorious and holy works of Karl Marx without any fear of that blasphemous idea of trying to apply them to reality.


Um, that was supposed to be a *secret* strategy.... (grin)

[Geiseric]

Is there any party that stands for annihilation of Capital in Syria? I support it.

At this very second I think ending the war would be the correct stance, because any attempt at revolution would be for naught in a chaotic environment like this.

The stance of all socialists should be for an immediate seize fire between both sides, so the working class of Syria can organize and regroup. This would entail a simulataneous demand to stop all western intervention in the region. I think the working class in Syria is more worried about staying alive at this point then getting rid of capitalism, and who can blame them? If they can force the bourgeois armies to stop their campaigns, Syria would be a place where revolutionary working class people can organize to prevent something like this from happening.