Greek National Socialists fighting for Assad in Syria

[Le Socialiste]

Interesting interview regarding the composition of forces supporting Assad, which includes members of a far-right fascist organization based in Greece. Haven't really heard of this group before, has anyone else?


Syria: The Greek National Socialists that are fighting alongside Assad's regime are far more dangerous than Golden Dawn

Believe it or not there is a far more dangerous extreme right group in Greece besides Golden Dawn. It's name is Black Lily and they are a Nationalist Socialist organisation that organise themselves in a non hierarchical, horizontal, democratic platform structure but without democratic aims or ideas in mind!

A little insight on them can be read in the following interview contacted a couple of months ago by a journalist for the right/far right Greek daily “Democratia”!

They are hard line National Socialists. They do not hesitate to use guns to defend their ideological believes. They produce propaganda and they do not hesitate to use direct action as means of highlighting their politics.

They co ordinate their actions through their blog "Mavros Krinos" (Black Lily) http://mavroskrinos.blogspot.gr/ On June 15th they organise such an action using this blog and attack - bathing him with some fizzy drink - minister of Greek government Evangelos Venizelos in Paris, on their blog they claimed responsibility for the action right after the attack by stating that the attacker was a "Greek autonomous National Socialist comrade" of theirs. In Syria members of "Black Lily" are not using words or bathing people with cans of fizzy drinks.

In Syria they are armed and dangerous. A whole platoon of volunteers are fighting side by side with Assad's government forces."Democratia" newspaper journalist Panagiotis Liakos contacted Stavros Libovisis member of the editorial group of "Black Lily" and in an interview asked him about the involvement and role of the organisation in the Syrian conflict and received some very interesting answers.
__________________________________________

What is the name of the collective you represent? And what's it's role in the creation of the Greek volunteer force fighting on Assad's side in Syria?

The collectives name that I represent is ' Black Lily " a Greek National Socialist organisation with autonomous running and structure. We have been in touch with our Syrian brothers in arms for years now and that has played an important role in our today's presence fighting along their side.

How many fighters are currently reside in Syria? Are they there fighting out of ideological motivation or they are just mercenaries?

When you feel deep inside you the sense that you belong somewhere your motivation and presence there can be only in purely ideological grounds, money does not come into play what so ever. Therefore the only reason for us to be there fighting alongside our Syrian brothers in arms is to help them defend the soil of a friendly nations people, showing our solidarity in practise against an age-old foe. The Greeks volunteers is estimated to be the size of a platoon, to answer the first part of your question.

What is their social and professional background? Do they have any experience on any other armed struggle the likes of Iraq, Kosovo, Afganistan?

Working class Citizens army highly politicised that reject corrupt party politics and at the same time understand very well the plans of international authority and global loan sharks. On the second part of the question, they have not been participated on any other armed struggle in recent years.

Have they seen any action and if yes have they got any casualties?

Since 2011 that the capitalist web start constructed around the body of proud Syria, fighters from all over Europe joined the ranks in of the Syrian Army and Civil Defence in mass, among them many Greeks. Greek fighters have participated in all major battles that commenced in South and West of the country the last two years and so far no casualties have been reported. It's not a coincidence that in the fierce battle that took place in Al-Quasar beside the praise for the heroic Hezbollah, the Greek fighters received credit for their bravery as well.

How the local population sees your presence there? What is their thoughts of Greece in general?

Syria has been named besides South Italy, "Great Greece" and the feelings of the ordinary Syrian people cannot been described in a couple of lines. A massive part of the population is of Greek extraction and is very disappointing that no one cared to support them all these years from the Greek corrupt state.

Regarding the Syrian Christian Orthodox that are chased by the Islamists fundamentalists, have they help with the armed struggle against the rebels?

Syria is a mosaic of nationalities and religions that the Baath party successfully protected during the years of Hazef al-Asaad and Bashar al-Asaad. The majority of the Syrian people - including the reports of Western governments- supports the regime and rejects the plans of the bloodthirsty imperialists that want to turn the country into a capitalist brothel and a market for the likes of McDonald's and Starbucks. Syrian orthodox are fighting in the front line for a free nationalist Syria and they are distinguished for their bravery on counter attacking the intoxicated addicts of the mercenary Salafists of Al-Qaeda.

What's the reason for the conflict in Syria to your opinion? What you think is going to be the outcome?

This is just another episode in the expanding global dictatorship of the American-Zionist war machine after the collapse of the USSR and there is a good chance Syria to be it's first geopolitical defeat since the Vietnam war. Some of the reasons for conflict is the protection of the murderous Israeli state interests, the race for the exploitation of the rich natural resources of the area and the hate of the Emirs of the gulf for Syria among other things. The Syrian people at the end will prevail because they are on the defence of nation and truth!

In the groups of volunteers ( or mercenaries) are lots of Europeans. How many are they?And are they coming from nationalist or extreme-right wing parties and organisations?

The exact number of European fighters here is hard to pin point, but in recent times thousands of Russians, Ukrainians and Pols declared themselves ready to fight alongside the "The Lion of Syria" i.e Bashar al-Assad. We distance ourselves from the term "extreme right" for all these people, because traditionally the "bourgeoisie extreme right" has no connection with national-revolutionary ideas. Indeed some Europeans participate and support parties and various movements of the so called "Nationalist Autonomy".

Are they any US volunteers on Assad's side?

We do not know if they are any US citizens on the side of the Nationalist army, but we know for a fact that they are plenty of these cannibal fighters on the side of the so called "Free Syrian Army".

On the battle that took place in Al-Qusayr we found loads of ID documents and passports on the dead bodies of the compatriots of Barack Obama, that fellow that is so admired by Mrs Rena Dourou of SYRIZA.

For all these that you've heard that happened in Syria so far, what is the incident that shock you the most? Have they been any massacres that we haven't watched in the western media?

The drama of the Syrian people brings in memory the suffering of the Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis and Serbians with the thousands of casualties in the previous decades a result of the actions of the Wall street "hawks" and the American-Zionist foreign policy. It's unbelievable how quiet has been the Greek Orthodox church of Archbishop Ieronymos and Patriarch Bartolomiou on the continuous pledges for help by the Syrian Orthodox people. Everyday civilians and prisoners are sadistically executed , women and children are being raped, towns and villages set on fire only because they refuse to accept the imposed Sari ah law of the mercenaries of Qatar and Saudi Arabia and for all these atrocities you won't hear a word on any western radio or television.

What do you think will be the fate of the kidnapped Syrian Orthodox bishops?

We find it quiet hard to believe that they will survive the uncontrollable mania of the mercenaries, the western media often hide the tragic end of that kind of incidents because they are afraid of the reaction of religious communities and at the same time expose the people behind the plans of a wider explosion of violence in the wider Middle east area. We call all these people with open minds to support by all means the patriotic forces of Syria and understand that they have to ready themselves for the incoming storm that approaching towards them fast because of the plans of the local Zionist occupation government back home.

http://glykosymoritis.blogspot.com/2013/09/syria-greek-nationalist-socialists-that.html

[Misericordia]

OP, are you an idiot of some sort? I'm not trying to be offensive but I mean come on this article is such a piece of stinking shit a normal person wouldn't even consider posting it if they read it.

"Syria: The Greek National Socialists that are fighting alongside Assad's regime are far more dangerous than Golden Dawn"...really? They are more dangerous than a neo-Nazi organisazation that has half a million supporters in Greece(according to the 2012 elections, their number of supporters has probably increased this year) that engages in the most brutal and brazen acts of violence, a neo-Nazi organization with influential contacts and resources that has infiltrated every police station and every army barracks in Greece? The only claim that supposedly justifies this absurd assertion is the fact that in June of this year, these "Black Lily" characters sprayed a PASOK minister with some soda in Paris. So apparently PETA is 20 times more dangerous than the Golden Dawn.

Oh actually there is another claim; namely, that they have a platoon fighting in Syria on the side of the Syrian Arab Army, the National Defense Forces, Hezbollah, etc. There is no evidence whatsoever for this but let's pretend it's a credible claim. Do you know what a platoon is? 20-30 people. The writer of the asinine nonsense in the OP clearly doesn't know what a platoon is, look at him go:

A whole platoon of volunteers are fighting side by side with Assad's government forcesA whole fucking platoon guys. Yesterday 30 al-Qai'dah rats were killed in Mayda'aa, Damascus. Before yesterday 21 were killed in Judayda, Aleppo. In Al-Shuray'ah Orchards, Hama, 20 were killed and captured. Numerous platoons of these rats are exterminated on a daily basis. A platoon of Greek foreigers if supposed to be impressive? In August, during their August 16-19 counter-offensive in Latakia, the Syrian Arab Army exterminated close to a thousand foreign rats from the SIF Al-Nusra Front and the ISIS. 168 rebel corpses were recovered from the Abu-Ashi'yaa range alone on the 18th.

The Syrian Army has close to 200,000 men. Another 300,000 reservists are available. Militia and paramilitary account for 200,000 more, though reservists and paramilitary/militia overlap, some bullshit about 20-30 Greeks doesn't make for an "interesting interview about the composition of" pro-governement forces.



Syria is a mosaic of nationalities and religions that the Baath party successfully protected during the years of Hazef al-Asaad and Bashar al-Asaad. The majority of the Syrian people - including the reports of Western governments- supports the regime and rejects the plans of the bloodthirsty imperialists that want to turn the country into a capitalist brothel and a market for the likes of McDonald's and Starbucks. Syrian orthodox are fighting in the front line for a free nationalist Syria and they are distinguished for their bravery on counter attacking the intoxicated addicts of the mercenary Salafists of Al-Qaeda. So basically they claim they are fighting against imperialism and for multi-culturalism in Syria. They even have those silly anarchist ACAB posters on their blog:
https://lh3.ggpht.com/_ssvDZeFufj0/R3tXjbgV8wI/AAAAAAAAA2E/KOajcpIpczw/S660/acab2wk1.jpg
https://lh3.ggpht.com/_ssvDZeFufj0/R2wR0LgV75I/AAAAAAAAAvM/zJthoO6XL0Q/S660/acab(piorun)-wzor.jpg

These supposed far-right extremists are more leftist than most Trots and Anarchists. Tell me again how many Western Trots or Anarchists, who never stop raving about how much they love their Syrian revolution, have volunteered to fight in Syria on the side of the FSA or the Kurdish YPG? Zero? Oh well.

Did you really think that this stupidity would distract from the fact that in the last week close to 70 thousand rebel rats(including the three groups which made up the vast majority of the so-called "moderate" FSA: the Suqour- al-Sham Brigade, the Liwa al-Islam brigade and the Al-Tawhiid Brigade) broke with the FSA/SNC/"moderate leadership" and founded an Islamist coalition which calls for an Islamic Emirate in Syria with "an Islamic framework…based on Shari'ah' as the sole source of legislation". And you question the composition of Assad's forces? I'll take secular center-left nationalists over Bin Ladinites any day of the week.

[Misericordia]

Secular feminist socialist hero-revolutionaries of the revolutionary Free Syrian Army liberating Syria from Assad's Greek worse-than-golden-dawn fascists:
http://www.assafir.com/Photos/Photos30-09-2013/2866115051.jpg

[Comrade Jacob]

It's probably because Assad is white.

[el mosquito]

Interesting interview regarding the composition of forces supporting Assad, which includes members of a far-right fascist organization based in Greece. Haven't really heard of this group before, has anyone else?



http://glykosymoritis.blogspot.com/2013/09/syria-greek-nationalist-socialists-that.html


They sound more leftist to me than neo-nazis. Lmao they fight against terrorism and US imperialism, what do you call that?

[Sea]

Secular feminist socialist hero-revolutionaries of the revolutionary Free Syrian Army liberating Syria from Assad's Greek worse-than-golden-dawn fascists:
http://www.assafir.com/Photos/Photos30-09-2013/2866115051.jpg

edit:

I guess maybe it's not friendly to say "fuck off" and leave.

Please fuck off. Take your strasserist sympathies with you. Take your mockery and your moaning complaints, and never ever come back.

[bcbm]

These supposed far-right extremists are more leftist

i guess if you consider autonomous nationalists 'leftist,' which doesn't really make any sense at all. many of them also support the palestinian cause...

because they hate jews. try to dig a little deeper than their rhetoric.


Western Trots or Anarchists, who never stop raving about how much they love their Syrian revolution

i can't speak about trots since i don't know them or read their publications but i can't think of any anarchists who 'never stop raving' about the syrian 'revolution.'

[adipocere]

OP, are you an idiot of some sort? I'm not trying to be offensive but I mean come on this article is such a piece of stinking shit a normal person wouldn't even consider posting it if they read it.


The OP is not an idiot. He knows what he's doing.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yeah, and chechens are fighting along the side of Al Nusrah and throwing up Swastikas in Syria. half the shit going on makes no sense. this isnt a joke either. (http://youtu.be/oaUZlzDJqaE) (at 10 minutes, start)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

They sound more leftist to me than neo-nazis. Lmao they fight against terrorism and US imperialism, what do you call that?

Uhm, you know that the Nazis fought against terrorism and US Imperialism too, right? That whole WW2 thing? :rolleyes: The idea that you can prove that someone doesn't have a fascist ideology on those two traits alone is just silly.

[Le Socialiste]

They sound more leftist to me than neo-nazis. Lmao they fight against terrorism and US imperialism, what do you call that?

If these are the only two criteria by which you evaluate whether one qualifies as fascist or not, you need to seriously reevaluate your definition of fascism (or at least read up more about the historical trajectory of fascism in countries where it would eventually take hold, Italy and Germany being two notable examples). I'd recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Nazis-Capitalism-Working-Class/dp/1608461378) for further insight.

[Tifosi]

Is this the group associated with the "Mavros Krinos" blog?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Adventures in postmodernism

[Hrafn]

OP, are you an idiot of some sort? I'm not trying to be offensive but I mean come on this article is such a piece of stinking shit a normal person wouldn't even consider posting it if they read it.

So basically they claim they are fighting against imperialism and for multi-culturalism in Syria. They even have those silly anarchist ACAB posters on their blog:
https://lh3.ggpht.com/_ssvDZeFufj0/R3tXjbgV8wI/AAAAAAAAA2E/KOajcpIpczw/S660/acab2wk1.jpg
https://lh3.ggpht.com/_ssvDZeFufj0/R2wR0LgV75I/AAAAAAAAAvM/zJthoO6XL0Q/S660/acab(piorun)-wzor.jpg

These supposed far-right extremists are more leftist than most Trots and Anarchists. Tell me again how many Western Trots or Anarchists, who never stop raving about how much they love their Syrian revolution, have volunteered to fight in Syria on the side of the FSA or the Kurdish YPG? Zero? Oh well.

I made an account to reply to this post. That's how bothered I am by it. These aren't "silly anarchist posters". A.C.A.B. is frequently used in prison terminology, and among football ultras, skinheads, and so on. It is also very popular among Fascists and Nazis. Not just the left-wing scene, hence.

[CyM]

They sound more leftist to me than neo-nazis. Lmao they fight against terrorism and US imperialism, what do you call that?
So we're going to start cheering on Neo-Nazis who fight US imperialism now? I missed thwt memo. I'm not sure that's the kind of left I want to be a part of.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So we're going to start cheering on Neo-Nazis who fight US imperialism now? I missed thwt memo. I'm not sure that's the kind of left I want to be a part of.

Hear, hear!

Misercordia, please check your third-positionist nonsense.

The working class is international - the interimperialist war playing itself out in Syria is already a defeat for the working class, whether it's won by Sino-Russian Ba'ath Fascists or American-backed "rebels" and their fascistic Islamist allies.

As for Greek the fascists, it's nice to know there are people shooting at them, even if those people are little better.

[Misericordia]

i guess if you consider autonomous nationalists 'leftist,' which doesn't really make any sense at all. many of them also support the palestinian cause...
Autonomous nationalists are a syncretic group that combines elements of both the far-left and the far-right. And I didn't call them leftist, I said they are more leftist than whatever passes for Trotskyists today. Meaning both are worthless idiots.


because they hate jews. try to dig a little deeper than their rhetoric.
Antisemitism in Greece? I haven't heard of any antisemitic incidents in Greece in the last few years. Probably because there is no sizeable Jewish minority in Greece, or because Greek fascists don't bother with pogroms against Jews as they do with pogroms against Turks, Arabs, Africans, etc.



i can't speak about trots since i don't know them or read their publications but i can't think of any anarchists who 'never stop raving' about the syrian 'revolution.'
I'm talking about Anarchists on RevLeft. I've even seen them soliciting money/donations for the rebels.

[Misericordia]

I made an account to reply to this post. That's how bothered I am by it. These aren't "silly anarchist posters". A.C.A.B. is frequently used in prison terminology, and among football ultras, skinheads, and so on. It is also very popular among Fascists and Nazis. Not just the left-wing scene, hence.
So, silly anarchist-fascist-nazi-skinhead posters? I'm sorry I don't dabble in these idiotic sub-cultures to know enough about their imagery.


So we're going to start cheering on Neo-Nazis who fight US imperialism now? I missed thwt memo. I'm not sure that's the kind of left I want to be a part of.
Most of the left in West cheers on Bin Ladenites that are fighting for American, Israeli, Turkish and Saudi-Qatari imperialism in Syria. So? It's like you're saying the left could sink even lower.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Stop using revleft as a stand-in for a real community, its weird.

[Misericordia]

The working class is international - the interimperialist war playing itself out in Syria is already a defeat for the working class, whether it's won by Sino-Russian Ba'ath Fascists or American-backed "rebels" and their fascistic Islamist allies.
If this working class is as international as you say it is then certainly the War in Syria is a victory for it? The Syrian section is suffering, but the Algerian, Bahraini, Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Lebanese, Libyan, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Omanese, Palestinian, Qatar, Saudi, Somalian, Sudanese, Tunisian, Emirati and Yemeni and dozens of other sections of the international working class are benefiting given that their ranks are being cleansed of dozens of thousands of Bin Ladenite fascists that are leaving for Syria and ending up in 6 feet under in mass graves?

If I was a communist Greek worker living in Greece, I would rejoice to see the flower of the Golden Dawn cadres going off to a far-away land to die with nothing to show for it, to give an example.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

If this working class is as international as you say it is then certainly the War in Syria is a victory for it? The Syrian section is suffering, but the Algerian, Bahraini, Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Lebanese, Libyan, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Omanese, Palestinian, Qatar, Saudi, Somalian, Sudanese, Tunisian, Emirati and Yemeni and dozens of other sections of the international working class are benefiting given that their ranks are being cleansed of dozens of thousands of Bin Ladenite fascists that are leaving for Syria and ending up in 6 feet under in mass graves?.

I chuckled at that.
If it weren't for, well, you know, the horrors said "Bin Ladenite fascists" were inflicting on Syrians, not to mention the horrors Ba'athists were inflicting using the war as justification, you'd kind of have a point. If only they could have a war with no "collateral damage", right?

[Misericordia]

I chuckled at that.
If it weren't for, well, you know, the horrors said "Bin Ladenite fascists" were inflicting on Syrians, not to mention the horrors Ba'athists were inflicting using the war as justification, you'd kind of have a point. If only they could have a war with no "collateral damage", right?
I'm sure that if you do a cost-benifit analysis things wouldn't look so bleak. You sir, are a bad "internationalist". You sir, are willing to forsake the well-being of the 83 sections of the "international proletariat" from which the "Syrian" rebels hail(latest count is that Jihadists from 83 countries are fighting in Syria), all for the sake of 1 section of the proletariat, the Syrian one. 1 against 83! You are the running dog of Syrian nationalists! Yes indeed you stand on the same level as that entire platoon(an entire one!) of Greek third positions allegedly fighting in Syria! something something something something something something something words words words words words na na na na na na na na

[Devrim]

If this working class is as international as you say it is then certainly the War in Syria is a victory for it? The Syrian section is suffering, but the Algerian, Bahraini, Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Lebanese, Libyan, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Omanese, Palestinian, Qatar, Saudi, Somalian, Sudanese, Tunisian, Emirati and Yemeni and dozens of other sections of the international working class are benefiting given that their ranks are being cleansed of dozens of thousands of Bin Ladenite fascists that are leaving for Syria and ending up in 6 feet under in mass graves.

This is one of the most foolish arguments that I have seen on RevLeft in a long while. Without going into the problems underlying it, even within its own warped logic it doesn't work. The working class in other Arab countries is not being cleansed of 'Bin Ladenite fascists'*. What is happening is that radical Islamicists in those countries build up their networks and organisations by pointing to the example of people from that country going to fight in Syria, using their martyrdom to bring in more people, and the fact that they were killed by some sort of kafir to increase sectarianism, so rather than ridding the working class of people with these ideas, it actually increases their numbers, and builds up sectarian tensions within society.

Devrim

*Which part of the gutter press did you get this term from?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

They sound more leftist to me than neo-nazis. Lmao they fight against terrorism and US imperialism, what do you call that?

I'd call that any other non-proletarian class force on earth which isn't a part of the U.S empire. The Russian Empire was against German imperialism and terrorism, does that make them leftist?

[Le Socialiste]

something something something something something something something words words words words words na na na na na na na na

You're more than free to make your argument in this thread, however much I happen to disagree with it. But please refrain from nonsense like this, it makes it seem like you're not willing to take this seriously, and could border on trolling.

[Sea]

You're more than free to make your argument in this thread, however much I happen to disagree with it. But please refrain from nonsense like this, it makes it seem like you're not willing to take this seriously, and could border on trolling.Could? Border? That's very generous of you...

[adipocere]

I'm talking about Anarchists on RevLeft. I've even seen them soliciting money/donations for the rebels.

Seriously? Trying to con money on Revleft for fucking mercenaries who have already reduced the US treasury by at least 115 MILLION (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/13/how_the_new_60_million_of_syria_aid_is_being_spent ) dollars?
What the fuck do they need it for, fava beans and a nice Chianti?

Those people should be banned and the remaining rebel cheerleaders should be restricted to OI.

[Le Socialiste]

I'm talking about Anarchists on RevLeft. I've even seen them soliciting money/donations for the rebels.

Some evidence would be lovely. Either way sure, let's just keep painting the rebels and all opposition to Assad with a single brush. What need has one for objectivity when they have endless nonsense on hand?

[Le Socialiste]

Could? Border? That's very generous of you...

Yeah, well...you know me. I'm a rather generous person.

[el mosquito]

Uhm, you know that the Nazis fought against terrorism and US Imperialism too, right? That whole WW2 thing? :rolleyes: The idea that you can prove that someone doesn't have a fascist ideology on those two traits alone is just silly.

Well these neonazis (call them whatever you like) who fights for a secular/multicultural syrian society looks less fascist to me than the trotskyites who cheerleads the TRUE FASCISTS in Washington DC and Qatar as they wage an imperialist proxy war against Syria.

Ultimately, fascism to me is the merger of state power with capitalist corporate power in a time of heightened Capitalist crisis. Oh yeah, that just describes the United Fucking States government that is totally in the grip of finance and military-industrial corporate interest.

And the confused trotskyists supporting the imperialist wars still call themselves leftists to this day :laugh:

[Hrafn]

Well these neonazis (call them whatever you like) who fights for a secular/multicultural syrian society looks less fascist to me than the trotskyites who cheerleads the TRUE FASCISTS in Washington DC and Qatar as they wage an imperialist proxy war against Syria.

Ultimately, fascism to me is the merger of state power with capitalist corporate power in a time of heightened Capitalist crisis. Oh yeah, that just describes the United Fucking States government that is totally in the grip of finance and military-industrial corporate interest.

And the confused trotskyists supporting the imperialist wars still call themselves leftists to this day :laugh:

"True Fascists"?

I don't think you know what Fascism is. At all. Fascism is a specific bourgeois ideology, with a specific history. The United States is capitalist, authoritarian, imperialist, you name it, but by no means a part of the Fascist ideological current.

[Misericordia]

This is one of the most foolish arguments that I have seen on RevLeft in a long while. Without going into the problems underlying it, even within its own warped logic it doesn't work. The working class in other Arab countries is not being cleansed of 'Bin Ladenite fascists'*. What is happening is that radical Islamicists in those countries build up their networks and organisations by pointing to the example of people from that country going to fight in Syria, using their martyrdom to bring in more people, and the fact that they were killed by some sort of kafir to increase sectarianism, so rather than ridding the working class of people with these ideas, it actually increases their numbers, and builds up sectarian tensions within society.

Devrim

*Which part of the gutter press did you get this term from?
Those Takfiri groups are building up their networks thanks to the billions of dollars being funneled to them by their GCC and NATO masters. The SAA, in turn, is exterminating the flower of their recruits, those cadres which are the most dedicated of the global Jihadist army(in other words, the ones that actually have the balls to pick up arms). My point stands.

Gutter press?


reporters or newspapers engaging in sensational journalism, especially accounts of the private lives of public figures
I borrowed the term from As'ad Abu Khalil, a Lebanese anarcho-communist that has been an opponent of the Syrian Regime for decades. You presume too much, yoldaş.

[Misericordia]

Some evidence would be lovely. Either way sure, let's just keep painting the rebels and all opposition to Assad with a single brush. What need has one for objectivity when they have endless nonsense on hand?
Some evidence? Can't you just google it? One of the numerous results:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/adopt-syrian-revolutionary-t169117/index.html?t=169117

An Anarchist Administrator soliciting money for the rebel LCCs. Here, let me explain what the LCCs are:


Laying to the side, for the moment, what these circles actually were or could have been in 2011, the first thing that must be observed now is that this organization’s publicly available documents present a vague ideology of “revolution”, “liberty”,
“unity”, whose aim is “building a state for all Syrians” for the “Syrian people are one” (but who is to be considered a “Syrian” remains unclear). Into such wooly phrases, the agenda of neo-liberals or the PR savvy contemporary Syrian Muslim Brotherhood could be filled much more easily than any bona-fide revolutionary agenda. The LCCs, presumably, leave filling in the details of the political line of the movement to those that carry the gun, and to the official foreign based opposition, the SNC, to whom they profess loyalty as members. Considering the recognized nature of the latter body, this fact alone should disqualify them from being counted as a revolutionary force.

Some western commentators point to the existence of the LCCs as a sign of a quiet revolution that is building up the basis for a post-Assad society. This confuses the maintaining of a skeleton of the former administrative apparatus and the handing out of humanitarian aid with societal transformation. Construction of a “dual power” is impossible without a genuine alternative political vision, which, as we just observed, is conspicuously absent from the LCCs. Much of the activities of these groups can be summed up as people trying their best to aid each other in times of civil breakdown, out of a sense of mutual aid that is natural to humans living in society. Such makeshift altruism is common in wars and other general calamities. But that does not mean these ad hoc arrangements that are dictated by survival are advancing a lasting political alternative. Rather, they are keeping a modicum of livability in the interim before their side, or anyone’s side, wins the political-military battle.

They are said to be at least non-violent, which is true, in the sense they are not a military organization. But this does not mean they are neutrally working as a separate organization from the opposition fighters. Insofar as they still effectively exist in the ground, they act as civilian auxiliaries and propagandists for the so called “FSA”. Their report for September 2 is typical: A large part of it is a description of the multiple attacks led by opposition fighters, accompanied by videos allegedly showing rebels taking on regime artillery positions, attacking Hezbollah, and downing government warplanes.

Doreen Khoury of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs confirms this in piece entitled Losing the Syrian Grassroots when, after observing that the LCCs as a whole have much declined in importance with the intensification of the conflict, she talks about the successful ones:



However, there are numerous examples across Syria of successful cooperation between the civilian and armed opposition. In Idlib, Deraa and Kafrnabel, LCCs and local councils have remained strong; despite the presence of armed groups. In Kabboun, activists have said that there is a clear division of responsibilities between the LCC (media outreach, political activism), the local administration council (municipal services and local judiciary), and the local FSA division (security, aid and resource distribution on behalf of the local council)Lina Zouhour, a sympathetic observer of the LCCs as a “revolutionary” body, confirms this trend towards integration, while trying to place a positive spin on it:


Acting as the guardian of the uprising, the non-violent movement is willy-nilly learning to coexist with the armed movement. Activists continue to act through the distribution of humanitarian aid and the organization of awareness campaigns, with the hope that they will reap the fruit of their labor in the long run.The fate of the peaceful activists is thus tied to that of the armed opposition (see below). One cannot be in solidarity with the cause of the one without also siding with the cause of the other.

Finally, the most damning fact against the LCCs (besides their endorsement of the SNC) is found by following the money trail: the LCCs receive funding from The Office for Syrian Opposition Support (OSOS), a creature of the State Department and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as the U.S. founded “Friends of Syria” group. In fact the OSOS seeks to provide training to “activists” in how to be the next “governing class” in post-Assad Syria. In addition, there are several private Western donor groups with paternalistic names like “Adopt a Revolution” sending money to the LCCs. This is where at least part of the sources for the “humanitarian aid” they distribute in the areas they help administer with the “FSA” ultimately comes from. Thus, the LCCs act as conduits for material support to armed rebels by the U.S. axis. They are not some independent, civilizing force working among the domestic combatants; they are a humanitarian cloak for the influence of Washington, Downing Street, and RiyadhAnd what is this nonsense about objectivity? The objective fact is that during the last week approximately 80% of the "opposition" has founded a hardline Islamist coalition which calls for a Syrian Emirate with an "an Islamic framework…based on Shari'ah' as the sole source of legislation" and declared the "moderate", "secular," groups illegitimate. It takes Trotskyist traitors to cheer the Syrian Opposition; whether it is the NATO-backed faction or the Saudi-backed Jihadist one.


You're more than free to make your argument in this thread, however much I happen to disagree with it. But please refrain from nonsense like this, it makes it seem like you're not willing to take this seriously, and could border on trolling.
Oh the hypocrisy. Spare me. This is a perfect example of selective moderation. You thank the post of that Benny Hill jackass whose post consisting of nothing but a "Fuck off" and then you dare warn me for saying "na na na na na"?

And yes, if I wasn't clear before, I'm not taking this seriously because this thread was an awfully idiotic idea on your part.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The notion that "Trots", as a group, support the Glorious Syrian People's Islamic Revolution is outright absurd. Many centrist groups - the same groups that had supported Khomeini and Solidarnosc usually - do, but their position is far from consistent Trotskyism at any rate. And the most vocal cheerleaders for the saintly theocratic revolutionaries in the United States, Proyect and Binh, are closer to Marxism-Leninism than Trotskyism. Make of that what you will.

As for the article itself, the implication seems to be that since certain fascists are fighting for the Ba'ath regime, the regime is itself fascist and the Islamist rebels are somehow anti-fascistic - using the same sort of "logic", the Spanish Republic was fascist because members of the CEDA fought on the Republican side.

[Misericordia]

The notion that "Trots", as a group, support the Glorious Syrian People's Islamic Revolution is outright absurd. Many centrist groups - the same groups that had supported Khomeini and Solidarnosc usually - do, but their position is far from consistent Trotskyism at any rate. And the most vocal cheerleaders for the saintly theocratic revolutionaries in the United States, Proyect and Binh, are closer to Marxism-Leninism than Trotskyism. Make of that what you will.

As for the article itself, the implication seems to be that since certain fascists are fighting for the Ba'ath regime, the regime is itself fascist and the Islamist rebels are somehow anti-fascistic - using the same sort of "logic", the Spanish Republic was fascist because members of the CEDA fought on the Republican side.
Actually for that I do apologize. There are some Trotskyist organizations that still retain their dignity and principles, like the Spartacists.

As for Proyect and Binh, that pair of prostitutes aren't even close to Marxist-Leninism. Proyect promotes the films of that racist Czarist shitbag Sergei Balabanov because they "expose the evils of Stalinism" on his blog. As for alleged non-Trotskyism of Proyect, I have an anecdote about that which happened just 13 days ago, which says all there needs to be said. That LCCs quote in my previous post comes from the North Star blog. Proyect attacked the author of that article for being wrong on the Syrian situation because the author didn't read enough Trotsky.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, Proyect was a member of the SWP (US) under Hansen, and was kicked out in a fit of common sense by Barnes. I still think his line is closer to Marxism-Leninism in the sense that he rejects permanent revolution, and so on (much like Barnes), but that's perhaps neither here nor there. Both of those figures have, thankfully, broken with Leninism explicitly.

Proyect sometimes sounds like a Shachtmanist but as far as I can tell, he was never associated with the old US International/Independent Socialists or their splits. An odd figure, all in all.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

"The anarchists all support the rebels"

"Well I meant the anarchists on revleft"

"ok just one guy on revleft"

"All the Trotskyists support the rebels!"

"ok not all of them, just two bloggers"

Why don't you just shut up.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, to be fair the International Socialist Tendency and the United Secretariat - the two groups that most people who are not familiar with applied Trotskyist sectology associate with Trotskyism - both support the rebels. As for anarchists, there really does seem to be a lot of "look, this local committee of five members is secular and democratic and progressive" talk, but again, a lot of it comes from questionable groups.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't care if people want to misrepresent very specific statements as being in support of a future Islamic Syrian state, but revleft and blogspot are not representations of anything substantial in real life. When I read people post about "the anarchists I know do this" or "the Stalinists I know do that" I can always tell when they're talking about online interactions theyve had with like one or two people and it kinda makes me cringe. Go outside you goofs

[#FF0000]

words

Is it possible for you to, maybe, perhaps, by chance, make a post without shitting yourself in impotent rage please.

If not can you please stop posting?

[Hrafn]

Actually for that I do apologize. There are some Trotskyist organizations that still retain their dignity and principles, like the Spartacists.

As for Proyect and Binh, that pair of prostitutes aren't even close to Marxist-Leninism. Proyect promotes the films of that racist Czarist shitbag Sergei Balabanov because they "expose the evils of Stalinism" on his blog. As for alleged non-Trotskyism of Proyect, I have an anecdote about that which happened just 13 days ago, which says all there needs to be said. That LCCs quote in my previous post comes from the North Star blog. Proyect attacked the author of that article for being wrong on the Syrian situation because the author didn't read enough Trotsky.

Hey now, what's that I see there? Is it some stale sexism? Why yes indeed it is.

[Crux]

These supposed far-right extremists are more leftist than most Trots and Anarchists. Tell me again how many Western Trots or Anarchists, who never stop raving about how much they love their Syrian revolution, have volunteered to fight in Syria on the side of the FSA or the Kurdish YPG? Zero? Oh well.

Did you really think that this stupidity would distract from the fact that in the last week close to 70 thousand rebel rats(including the three groups which made up the vast majority of the so-called "moderate" FSA: the Suqour- al-Sham Brigade, the Liwa al-Islam brigade and the Al-Tawhiid Brigade) broke with the FSA/SNC/"moderate leadership" and founded an Islamist coalition which calls for an Islamic Emirate in Syria with "an Islamic framework…based on Shari'ah' as the sole source of legislation". And you question the composition of Assad's forces? I'll take secular center-left nationalists over Bin Ladinites any day of the week.
Maybe they'll take on a volunteer, "comrade". That you can't distinguish between fascists and "secular center-left nationalists" tells us some worrying things about your politics. I have in fact taken part in raising money for the Kurds, yes, which is more than I expect from a keyboard warrior like yourself. But your "center-left nationalists" will probably appreciate donations too.

On a related note, fascist military volunteers is nothing new, it happened in the Yugoslavian war as well and there was a group of Swedish neo-nazis that wanted to go to Iraq and fight for Saddam, alas the iraqi regime said no. Out of curiousity do you have any understanding of fascism? At all? Because I am hoping what you are displaying here is just utter and complete ignorance, see if I were to take your sympathy for fascists, I am sorry, "center-left nationalists" more seriously...well for whatever reason I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for now.

As for the threat they represent, well, to someone Misericordia fascists with military training and experience might not be a worry, he seems a bit conflicted on the issue of fascism, but to the revolutionary left and to the working class organizations in general they certainly represent a potentially very serious threat especially in the Greek situation.

Oh and once again the banality of pseudo-anti-imperialism is exposed in full view. I expect his rebuttal to be very interesting, will he fantasize up a position where I support the FSA? Or U.S military invasion? Yes, these people tend to be just that predictable. The irony is his position is oh so very similar to Pham Binh's, in method if not in choosen subject to fetischize.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Maybe they'll take on a volunteer, "comrade". That you can't distinguish between fascists and "secular center-left nationalists" tells us some worrying things about your politics.

I think it is fairly clear, in context, that the phrase "secular center-left nationalists" refers to the Ba'ath. And, in a sense, that description is correct. The Ba'ath is neither socialist nor proletarian, but it is certainly as "left" as European social-democratic parties.


On a related note, fascist military volunteers is nothing new, it happened in the Yugoslavian war as well[...]

See, during the civil war in Yugoslavia, most military forces apart from the YPA were fascist. Here, we are talking about one platoon. Let's not blow this out of all proportion.


As for the threat they represent, well, to someone Misericordia fascists with military training and experience might not be a worry, he seems a bit conflicted on the issue of fascism, but to the revolutionary left and to the working class organizations in general they certainly represent a potentially very serious threat especially in the Greek situation.

One. Alleged. Platoon. Of course fascist militancy is a problem, but one would expect the massively police-assisted KA is a greater problem than a Nazi pseudoautonomist platoon currently fighting in Syria.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I'm sure that if you do a cost-benifit analysis things wouldn't look so bleak. You sir, are a bad "internationalist". You sir, are willing to forsake the well-being of the 83 sections of the "international proletariat" from which the "Syrian" rebels hail(latest count is that Jihadists from 83 countries are fighting in Syria), all for the sake of 1 section of the proletariat, the Syrian one. 1 against 83! You are the running dog of Syrian nationalists! Yes indeed you stand on the same level as that entire platoon(an entire one!) of Greek third positions allegedly fighting in Syria! something something something something something something something words words words words words na na na na na na na na I wonder if this is what capitalists were thinking during the spanish civil war

[Le Socialiste]

It takes Trotskyist traitors to cheer the Syrian Opposition; whether it is the NATO-backed faction or the Saudi-backed Jihadist one.

I'm not a Trotskyist, but enough with the tendency-flaming.


Oh the hypocrisy. Spare me. This is a perfect example of selective moderation. You thank the post of that Benny Hill jackass whose post consisting of nothing but a "Fuck off" and then you dare warn me for saying "na na na na na"?

Well, Benny Hill amended their post - after which I thanked it. You can continue to add to the conversation, but your abrasive posting style isn't conducive to having an open, level-headed debate. Now, either you can work on curbing these behavioral tendencies and try actually adding to the discussion, or you can face administrative action. It's entirely up to you.


And yes, if I wasn't clear before, I'm not taking this seriously because this thread was an awfully idiotic idea on your part.

Not off to a great start...

[Crux]

I think it is fairly clear, in context, that the phrase "secular center-left nationalists" refers to the Ba'ath. And, in a sense, that description is correct. The Ba'ath is neither socialist nor proletarian, but it is certainly as "left" as European social-democratic parties.
Oh certainly, but perhaps we have a different view on European "social-democracy". Ex-soc. dems. more like. And as for Bashar Al-Assad he's spent the last couple of years being a loyal servant to the bourgeoisie. Sure maybe the Ba'athists are still seen as less slavish followers of the global capitalist class then they could be, but then again British capitalists preference for the tories doesn't change the fundamentally bourgeousie class character of New Labour. If you catch my drift. Bashar Al-Assad has burned and looted the public sector in Syria, just as the ex-soc. dems. in Europe has with their respective countries. In fact it might be argued he's gone even further. So if we had a defender of Blair on the forum, would you give them a pass too?


See, during the civil war in Yugoslavia, most military forces apart from the YPA were fascist. Here, we are talking about one platoon. Let's not blow this out of all proportion.Indeed we are talking about one platoon, but our Assadist bootlicker friend here seems very upset by us even discussing it. I guess if you view Bashar Al-Assad as a progressive, in any sense of the word, further degeneration is just around the corner.


One. Alleged. Platoon. Of course fascist militancy is a problem, but one would expect the massively police-assisted KA is a greater problem than a Nazi pseudoautonomist platoon currently fighting in Syria.I don't disagree in principle. But if you know what the GD are capable of surely you can't defend the notion of these fascists being in any sense whatsoever "left"? Surely you understand why this is just as bad as Pham Binh's handwaving about the islamists and the CIA (and Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia)? This is why pseudo-anti-imperialism becomes simplistic and why Binh's "democratic" struggle is just a mirror image of the same fake "anti-imperialism" (as if Iran and Russia has no imperial ambitions, as if they aren't fucking over their working class in a major way). Not only does it throw class analysis out the window, even basic ideological understanding can be thrown out as well. Now this is not a defence of objectively reactionary groups like the Al Nusra Brigades, or indeed "soft-islamists" and U.S puppets in the FSA. I am just trying to make myself clear here.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How is Syria's Baathist government any more leftist than New Labor or the French "socialists"? The form of Arab nationalism which exists in Syria today actually seems to have an even worse welfare state (unless you include "bombs dropped from airplanes" as a "government handout"). Inequality is actually greater in Syria than it is in Western social democratic countries, and their government doesn't have the excuse that "well, we've only been in power for a few years," so you can't even make the case that this is some kind of "progressive" bourgeois government. On the contrary, the protests which began in 2011 were not all "instigated by outside powers" but were a real indicator of the alienation of many citizens (and non-citizens in Kurdistan) from the mechanisms of power in that country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

[Spruce]

Maybe they'll take on a volunteer, "comrade". That you can't distinguish between fascists and "secular center-left nationalists" tells us some worrying things about your politics. I have in fact taken part in raising money for the Kurds, yes, which is more than I expect from a keyboard warrior like yourself. But your "center-left nationalists" will probably appreciate donations too.

On a related note, fascist military volunteers is nothing new, it happened in the Yugoslavian war as well and there was a group of Swedish neo-nazis that wanted to go to Iraq and fight for Saddam, alas the iraqi regime said no. Out of curiousity do you have any understanding of fascism? At all? Because I am hoping what you are displaying here is just utter and complete ignorance, see if I were to take your sympathy for fascists, I am sorry, "center-left nationalists" more seriously...well for whatever reason I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for now.

As for the threat they represent, well, to someone Misericordia fascists with military training and experience might not be a worry, he seems a bit conflicted on the issue of fascism, but to the revolutionary left and to the working class organizations in general they certainly represent a potentially very serious threat especially in the Greek situation.

Oh and once again the banality of pseudo-anti-imperialism is exposed in full view. I expect his rebuttal to be very interesting, will he fantasize up a position where I support the FSA? Or U.S military invasion? Yes, these people tend to be just that predictable. The irony is his position is oh so very similar to Pham Binh's, in method if not in choosen subject to fetischize.
There's a difference between not knowing the difference, and not caring. Frankly, it's hard to care about tiny groups of self-described fascists when they have no effect on anything (and that goes for Greece too).

But I am noticing the paranoia in your post, which makes me wonder whether what you're really doing is trying to justify your commitment to 'anti-racism' or 'anti-fascism' as a kind of political identity. Despite the fact that this isn't the 1970s, not to mention the 1920s or 1930s, and racism and fascism are about as weak as they ever have been, there's a lot of hot air about how the stormtroopers are right around the corner – no really, this time they're coming for real! If that stings your pride, I'm sorry.

I mean, why should keeping tabs on the activities of a couple very marginal fascists be a priority when our anti-racist, anti-fascist 'democracies' are the ones furiously attacking our economic and individual rights, and launching colonial wars? The cynical side of me thinks articles in Foreign Policy about how NAZIS are in bed with Assad might be a lil bit of propaganda aimed at the good natured left-of-centrist who felt uneasy about another war to benefit Israeli and Saudi creeps. I'm sure the ADL or UAF or their equivalents have the resources, expertise, and motivation to expose the sinister hidden connections between al-Assad and European neo-Nazis in the time for news coverage of the next false flag chemical attack (that last bit is a joke, but more plausible than a fascist revival).

[Spruce]

Sorry, my mistake, the Foreign Policy one was the one on American rightwingers and Assad. This was an unrelated blog post.

Hopefully we can get a third thread about how Assad is a bad man and bad people like him.

[Le Socialiste]

Despite the fact that this isn't the 1970s, not to mention the 1920s or 1930s, and racism and fascism are about as weak as they ever have been, there's a lot of hot air about how the stormtroopers are right around the corner – no really, this time they're coming for real! If that stings your pride, I'm sorry.

Really not sure where you're coming from here, or what you're basing this on. Racism is alive and well in most places (though it manifests itself in different ways), and in countries like Greece - where parties like Golden Dawn have risen to be the 3rd most popular party - it can have real repercussions for immigrants who've been subject to beatings, torture, even death. In fact, Europe has seen an increase in the popularity of far-right parties the past couple years. Part of this has to do with the weakness and general disorientation of the revolutionary left, which in better circumstances could actually make a larger impact on working peoples' lives and win them to their perspective.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh certainly, but perhaps we have a different view on European "social-democracy". Ex-soc. dems. more like. And as for Bashar Al-Assad he's spent the last couple of years being a loyal servant to the bourgeoisie. Sure maybe the Ba'athists are still seen as less slavish followers of the global capitalist class then they could be, but then again British capitalists preference for the tories doesn't change the fundamentally bourgeousie class character of New Labour. If you catch my drift. Bashar Al-Assad has burned and looted the public sector in Syria, just as the ex-soc. dems. in Europe has with their respective countries. In fact it might be argued he's gone even further. So if we had a defender of Blair on the forum, would you give them a pass too?

"Ex" social-democrats? Most of the parties in question are still called social-democratic, and their class character has not changed at all. The only difference between, say, "New" and "Old" Labour, is that the latter aimed to reinforce the bourgeois state in a period of high proletarian militancy through welfare measures, and the former is presently dismantling the welfare system in this era of global reaction. But that is a fairly superficial difference from a Marxist standpoint. The notion - entertained by certain centrist Trotskyist groups - that "old" social-democratic parties were somehow proletarian is unsupportable.

That's not the point, though. Their class character aside, these parties are commonly referred to as "left-wing" in the bourgeois press etc. etc. And if they are "left-wing", so is the Ba'ath, the Nasserist parties etc. This is not, in itself, an endorsement of the Ba'ath.

As for "defending" Blair, that could mean a lot of things. Do you mean someone who politically supports Blair? That person should be restricted immediately. Or someone who thinks that even Blair is preferable to a hypothetical fundamentalist Christian insurgency in the UK? Well, he is. Misericordia can speak for themselves, but as far as I can tell, their point was simply that the Ba'ath regime, being secular and somewhat opposed to communalism, is preferable to the various insurgents.


Indeed we are talking about one platoon, but our Assadist bootlicker friend here seems very upset by us even discussing it. I guess if you view Bashar Al-Assad as a progressive, in any sense of the word, further degeneration is just around the corner.

Wow, "Assadist". It's amusing how often the administrators of this site will make accusations that would result in administrative action if they were true, and then do nothing about it.

I am also, well, "upset" is the wrong word, but this is a pretty transparent attempt to make the Ba'ath regime look fascist by association.


I don't disagree in principle. But if you know what the GD are capable of surely you can't defend the notion of these fascists being in any sense whatsoever "left"?

First of all, the group in question is not part of the Golden Dawn, but are some bizarre sort of Nazi pseudoautonomist groups. But, of course, the notion that they are "left", even by bourgeois standards, is indefensible. But as far as I can tell, Misericordia never claimed that they were - they said that they are "more left" than certain "socialist" groups. The point was that the alleged socialist groups are objectively on the side of the reaction - and to be honest, they are. Again.


Surely you understand why this is just as bad as Pham Binh's handwaving about the islamists and the CIA (and Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia)? This is why pseudo-anti-imperialism becomes simplistic and why Binh's "democratic" struggle is just a mirror image of the same fake "anti-imperialism" (as if Iran and Russia has no imperial ambitions, as if they aren't fucking over their working class in a major way). Not only does it throw class analysis out the window, even basic ideological understanding can be thrown out as well. Now this is not a defence of objectively reactionary groups like the Al Nusra Brigades, or indeed "soft-islamists" and U.S puppets in the FSA. I am just trying to make myself clear here.

Ambition is irrelevant, Iran simply does not have enough capital to export. They can't be imperialist even if they wanted to. And while Russia is an imperialist centre, they are not seeking regime change in Syria. You don't seem to distinguish between a state being embedded in the system of global capitalism, which is presently in the stage of imperialist capitalism, and an outright imperialist intervention.

[Sasha]

Ehm, the vast influence of fascism, Nazism, and racialism on baathism in general and Zaki al-Arsuzi in particular is historic fact. Here is an worthwhile thread from 2003 on the subject; http://www.revleft.com/vb/facts-ba-39-t14847/index.html
The Wikipedia on baathism also has a whole chapter on its fascist, Nazi and racialist roots and continuing influence.
And although nominally distancing itself from Assad the Syrian National Socialist party remains the loyal opposition of the regime till this very day.
The Assad cheerleaders are rooting for a competing side of reactionaries on par with the worst imperialist..

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ehm, the vast influence of fascism, Nazism, and racialism on baathism in general and Zaki al-Arsuzi in particular is historic fact.

Al-Arsuzi was a cultural nationalist, heavily influenced by fascism, true, but not exactly a racist (in the sense in which the Nazis were racist). Ideologies associated with fascism (there was no single fascist ideology, mind) were quite influential in the interwar period, and many bourgeois politicians - not necessarily fascists, but often Christian-democrats, social-democrats, nationalists etc. - of the era felt that influence.

Of course, we are materialists, so classifying the Ba'ath according to its nominal ideology is not enough. What are the material realities of the Ba'ath regime? Where is the mass mobilisation of the petite bourgeoisie and backward strata of the proletariat that characterises fascism? Where is the militant opposition to organised labour?


And although nominally distancing itself from Assad the Syrian National Socialist party remains the loyal opposition of the regime till this very day.

"Social-Nationalist". And yes, the SSNP is obviously heavily influenced by fascism, but its pan-"Syrian" outlook is far from genuine Middle Eastern fascism, like the Phalange. They're romantic bourgeois nationalists, more confused than most, and they were never a serious threat or support to the Ba'ath.

[Sasha]

Al-Arsuzi was a cultural nationalist, heavily influenced by fascism, true, but not exactly a racist (in the sense in which the Nazis were racist). Ideologies associated with fascism (there was no single fascist ideology, mind) were quite influential in the interwar period, and many bourgeois politicians - not necessarily fascists, but often Christian-democrats, social-democrats, nationalists etc. - of the era felt that influence.

Of course, we are materialists, so classifying the Ba'ath according to its nominal ideology is not enough. What are the material realities of the Ba'ath regime? Where is the mass mobilisation of the petite bourgeoisie and backward strata of the proletariat that characterises fascism? Where is the militant opposition to organised labour.

Until the uprising began right in the syrian constitution for starters

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Until the uprising began right in the syrian constitution for starters

I assume this refers to "opposition to organised labour" - but obviously, constitutional language opposed to trade unions is not in itself fascist (of course, before someone "discovers" that I too am an "Assadist", perhaps of the Saddamite-Robertsonite persuasion, it is to be opposed, as all aspects of bourgeois dictatorship are, if the opposition doesn't land the proletariat in an even worse situation, which the Glorious Syrian Revolution will do if it ever succeeds - which it won't, without imperial assistance). I mean, where are the Ba'ath thugs, recruited from the ruined petite bourgeoisie and the backward strata of the proletariat, who go around killing socialists, trade-unionists etc.?

At best, you could make a case for mass mobilisation under Jadid - but this was not a reactionary mobilisation, but a mobilisation rooted in genuinely progressive impulses, necessarily limited by the bourgeois and bureaucratic character of Jadid's regime. After the senior Assad's coup, the regime has tried to keep the masses pacified.

[Sasha]

Baathist thugs are called the Shabiha, they have been murdering trade unionists and leftists for decades.
And the constitution was racialist and fascist too (pre uprising damage control) it specified Arab supremacy and fielthy of all other parties to baathism and the baath party.
Oppose the uprising out of anti-imperialism all you want but any one making one single excuse for the regime, whether its actions or its ideology, really has no right to speak.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Baathist thugs are called the Shabiha, they have been murdering trade unionists and leftists for decades.

Even the most fantastic accounts of the organisation characterise the shabiha as a smuggling ring or gang prior to the current conflict.


And the constitution was racialist and fascist too (pre uprising damage control) it specified Arab supremacy and fielthy of all other parties to baathism and the baath party.

Syria was nominally an "Arab state", just as many states in Europe are self-professed states of a particular ethnic group. Again, this is ethnic chauvinism that is to be opposed, particularly considering the Kurdish nation in Syria, but your attempts to link this to some Nazi-style "racialism" are disingenuous.


Oppose the uprising out of anti-imperialism all you want but any one making one single excuse for the regime, whether its actions or its ideology, really has no right to speak.

Funnily enough, I would say the same for people who make excuses for Wahhabi fanatics.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Remember that the social impetus behind fascism often seems "progressive" to people at first sight. It's not like fascist regimes didn't promise effective welfare states for whomever was classed among the "good" ethnic group.


Even the most fantastic accounts of the organisation characterise the shabiha as a smuggling ring or gang prior to the current conflict.


Well that would fit in with the notion that fascism tends to use illegal means and the "lumpen" to increase their social power when necessary. They also became much more than just a "smuggling ring" once the current conflict began.



Syria was nominally an "Arab state", just as many states in Europe are self-professed states of a particular ethnic group. Again, this is ethnic chauvinism that is to be opposed, particularly considering the Kurdish nation in Syria, but your attempts to link this to some Nazi-style "racialism" are disingenuous.
Yeah and the racism of Italian fascism was not "Nazi style racialism" either (some Jews supported the fascists in Italy even), but it still sucked for the Libyans and Ethiopians conquered by the Italian army. The fact that Kurds were systemically denied citizenship because they were not "Arab" and had their culture violently repressed was more problematic than you are making it out to be. The Baathist disregard for the life of non-Arabs left countless Kurds dead in Iraq, too, so it's not like it's uncommon for Baathist regimes to slaughter Kurds to protect their state, or to deny them various other basic social benefits like citizenship.

[Crux]

"Ex" social-democrats? Most of the parties in question are still called social-democratic, and their class character has not changed at all. The only difference between, say, "New" and "Old" Labour, is that the latter aimed to reinforce the bourgeois state in a period of high proletarian militancy through welfare measures, and the former is presently dismantling the welfare system in this era of global reaction. But that is a fairly superficial difference from a Marxist standpoint. The notion - entertained by certain centrist Trotskyist groups - that "old" social-democratic parties were somehow proletarian is unsupportable.
This is just a poorly constructed attempt to sidetrack from what you actually said. So if you think Ba'athism is as left as present European social democracy...that's essentially a meaningless statement. The European Soc. Dems are by and large not left. But clearly your point wasn't to say that ba'athism isn't left wing.



As for "defending" Blair, that could mean a lot of things. Do you mean someone who politically supports Blair? That person should be restricted immediately. Or someone who thinks that even Blair is preferable to a hypothetical fundamentalist Christian insurgency in the UK? Well, he is. Misericordia can speak for themselves, but as far as I can tell, their point was simply that the Ba'ath regime, being secular and somewhat opposed to communalism, is preferable to the various insurgents.
Yes, there was a section of the supposed left that defended Blair on exactly that basis re the imperialist occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting against the fundamentalist insurgents.


Wow, "Assadist". It's amusing how often the administrators of this site will make accusations that would result in administrative action if they were true, and then do nothing about it.
It's amusing how smug and confused you are. See I am not allowed to share BA discussions with someone such as yourself so perhaps you should worry your mind with other things.


I am also, well, "upset" is the wrong word, but this is a pretty transparent attempt to make the Ba'ath regime look fascist by association. Ba'athism is IMHO related to fascism, the thing is though, Assad has chosen his association with fascists himself. Or did you think this Greek platoon of neo-nazis was the only example?



First of all, the group in question is not part of the Golden Dawn, but are some bizarre sort of Nazi pseudoautonomist groups.
"Pseudo-autonomist" for having ACAB banners? Do go on. This might be amusing.


But, of course, the notion that they are "left", even by bourgeois standards, is indefensible. But as far as I can tell, Misericordia never claimed that they were - they said that they are "more left" than certain "socialist" groups. The point was that the alleged socialist groups are objectively on the side of the reaction - and to be honest, they are. Again. This is hilariously hypocritical. So now it's not only all anarchists and all trotskyists but the entire left? Cute army of strawmen that.
Also misericordia has in fact defended the fascists in question by acting as their apologist in this thread.Here is another example:
So basically they claim they are fighting against imperialism and for multi-culturalism in Syria. They even have those silly anarchist ACAB posters on their blog. Now...if he keeps this up I am sure that administrative action you are asking for is just around the corner.




Ambition is irrelevant, Iran simply does not have enough capital to export. They can't be imperialist even if they wanted to. And while Russia is an imperialist centre, they are not seeking regime change in Syria. You don't seem to distinguish between a state being embedded in the system of global capitalism, which is presently in the stage of imperialist capitalism, and an outright imperialist intervention.
Please. You clearly haven't the faintest idea about what my position is on the FSA or intervention or if you do you are actively trying to misrepresent it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is just a poorly constructed attempt to sidetrack from what you actually said. So if you think Ba'athism is as left as present European social democracy...that's essentially a meaningless statement. The European Soc. Dems are by and large not left. But clearly your point wasn't to say that ba'athism isn't left wing.

They are not "left" in the sense that they are not communist or proletarian. Neither is the Ba'ath, as I stated in my previous post (this is so elementary I almost felt embarassed pointing it out, but given the accusations that are flying around...). They are "left" in the sense of being part of the vaguely progressive wing of the bourgeoisie. But of course, bourgeois progressivism amounts to little in the present period (as per my previous comment about Jadid).


Yes, there was a section of the supposed left that defended Blair on exactly that basis re the imperialist occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting against the fundamentalist insurgents.

Of course, al-Assad is not currently invading another state, and is not the head of an imperialist government in any case. But such distinctions are lost in your attempt to draw an equivalence between those who call for the military victory of the Ba'ath - which is the only consistently proletarian policy in the present situation - and the likes of Hitchens.


It's amusing how smug and confused you are. See I am not allowed to share BA discussions with someone such as yourself so perhaps you should worry your mind with other things.

You're too kind, comrade administrator. As is your cohort psycho who regularly baits people with accusations of antisemitism that have thus far resulted in very little in the way of actual administrative action. So you can bluster all you want - but the fact remains that you're simply trying to cover up for shitty politics - not even the CWI shitty politics, marvelously, since apparently you think Militant had been supporting a fascist regime for quite some time - by baiting users.


Ba'athism is IMHO related to fascism, the thing is though, Assad has chosen his association with fascists himself. Or did you think this Greek platoon of neo-nazis was the only example?

No, I am sure there are other platoons of Nazis that fight, or claim to fight, alongside the SAR. But hey, Miaja wasn't the only CEDA officer to fight for the Spanish Republic. If you want to argue that Ba'athism is fascist, by all means do so, but as I said, good luck trying to explain the Militant/CWI attitude to Syria then. But relying on vague insinuations is just lazy.

Oh, and what if the Ba'ath was fascist? Surely, comrade, you recall how Trotsky discussed the possibility of fascist Brazil being invaded by an imperialist power? Or is that too inconvenient for you?


"Pseudo-autonomist" for having ACAB banners? Do go on. This might be amusing.

Who said anything about "ACAB banners"? Not me, at any rate. Their alleged representative states that:

"The collectives name that I represent is ' Black Lily " a Greek National Socialist organisation with autonomous running and structure. " (From the OP.)

And, right, Nazis using autonomist and anarchist terms isn't anything new. Allegedly they like that shtick quite a bit in the Netherlands. If you think that calling them pseudo-autonomists was an endorsement of their politics, you must think I endorse LaRouche every time I call him a pseudo-Trotskyist.


This is hilariously hypocritical. So now it's not only all anarchists and all trotskyists but the entire left? Cute army of strawmen that.

Well, yes, the disease has spread quite a bit. Proyect and Binh are neither Trotskyist, not even of the wretched centrist variety, nor anarchists, for example.


Also misericordia has in fact defended the fascists in question by acting as their apologist in this thread.Here is another example: [...] Now...if he keeps this up I am sure that administrative action you are asking for is just around the corner.

Or perhaps they're being sarcastic ("those silly anarchist ACAB posters" doesn't exactly sound like an enthusiastic endorsement), and the desire of some people to see fascists in everyone who opposes their position results in, surprise surprise, them seeing fascists in everyone who opposes their position.


Please. You clearly haven't the faintest idea about what my position is on the FSA or intervention or if you do you are actively trying to misrepresent it.

I was talking about your very weak attempts to draw an equivalence between the two sides in this conflict - the hallmark of those who don't really wish to engage the subject matter.

edit: Sinister Cultural Marxist, apologies for missing your post for the first time.


Remember that the social impetus behind fascism often seems "progressive" to people at first sight. It's not like fascist regimes didn't promise effective welfare states for whomever was classed among the "good" ethnic group.

I sincerely hope that very few people view ethnically-based handouts as progressive. But that's neither here nor there. Jadid's government was not overtly anti-Kurdish - indeed, as far as I know, the plans to displace the Kurds of Jazira province, drawn up by the People's Party government, were scrapped and would only be implemented after the senior Assad came to power. Jadid should not be romanticised, of course, he was bourgeois through and through, but nationalisation, opposition to Israel, Saudi Arabia etc., all of these were progressive demands. Of course Jadid couldn't accomplish much to meet those demands. It is regrettable that, due to the failure of communist leadership, the proletariat in large part tailed his bourgeois government.

But Jadid, as a figure, remains closer to Chavez or Qassim than to Gemayel or Peron.


Well that would fit in with the notion that fascism tends to use illegal means and the "lumpen" to increase their social power when necessary. They also became much more than just a "smuggling ring" once the current conflict began.

Alright, but the use of criminal elements is not in itself evidence of fascism. Most bourgeois states rely on some criminal groups. As for the present status of the shabiha, the stories coming out of Syria are often, as I said, fantastic, and obviously propagandistic in character. I think their impact tends to be overstated.


Yeah and the racism of Italian fascism was not "Nazi style racialism" either (some Jews supported the fascists in Italy even), but it still sucked for the Libyans and Ethiopians conquered by the Italian army. The fact that Kurds were systemically denied citizenship because they were not "Arab" and had their culture violently repressed was more problematic than you are making it out to be. The Baathist disregard for the life of non-Arabs left countless Kurds dead in Iraq, too, so it's not like it's uncommon for Baathist regimes to slaughter Kurds to protect their state, or to deny them various other basic social benefits like citizenship.

Alright, but I never said that racism defines fascism. In fact it is perfectly possible to have a fascist government that is not overtly racist - the governments of Peron and Vargas seem to fit the description, at least. And yes, ethnic chauvinism is a serious problem in Syria, and the Ba'ath is responsible for much of it. This does not make the Ba'ath fascist, though. Nor does it obviate the fact that, in the long term, a military victory for the Ba'ath in the present situation is preferable for the proletariat and oppressed groups in Syria. Again, I refer to Trotsky's discussion of a possible imperialist invasion of the Brazilian fascist regime.

Of course, if there was an actual proletarian opposition to the Ba'ath, I would be the first to call for its merciless overthrow. But the willingness of some people on the ostensible left to see proto-Soviets in amorphous bodies with ties to Islamists aside, such an opposition does not exist in any significant number.

[dez]

some more info on vice
http://www.vice.com/read/are-greek-neo-nazis-fighting-for-assad-in-syria1

[Devrim]

Those Takfiri groups are building up their networks thanks to the billions of dollars being funneled to them by their GCC and NATO masters. The SAA, in turn, is exterminating the flower of their recruits, those cadres which are the most dedicated of the global Jihadist army(in other words, the ones that actually have the balls to pick up arms). My point stands.

Of course, which is why after the numerous conflicts in which radical Islamicists have sent people from across the Islamic world to, in your words, 'be exterminated', we have a situation where these sort of groups have been wiped out, have virtually no members left, and are in danger of collapse.

It is not the case.


Gutter press?
I borrowed the term from As'ad Abu Khalil, a Lebanese anarcho-communist that has been an opponent of the Syrian Regime for decades. You presume too much, yoldaş.

So people in American academia pick up the jargon of the mainstream media. It is hardly a surprise.

Devrim

[Crux]

They are not "left" in the sense that they are not communist or proletarian. Neither is the Ba'ath, as I stated in my previous post (this is so elementary I almost felt embarassed pointing it out, but given the accusations that are flying around...). They are "left" in the sense of being part of the vaguely progressive wing of the bourgeoisie. But of course, bourgeois progressivism amounts to little in the present period (as per my previous comment about Jadid).



Of course, al-Assad is not currently invading another state, and is not the head of an imperialist government in any case. But such distinctions are lost in your attempt to draw an equivalence between those who call for the military victory of the Ba'ath - which is the only consistently proletarian policy in the present situation - and the likes of Hitchens.
No, of course that distinction does matter, but say what role does the proletariat play in your supposed proletarian position? So far I haven't seen much of them at all. Oh and what do you imagine a "victory to the Baa'thist" will entail? I mean in the real beyond posturing slogans.




You're too kind, comrade administrator. As is your cohort psycho who regularly baits people with accusations of antisemitism that have thus far resulted in very little in the way of actual administrative action. So you can bluster all you want - but the fact remains that you're simply trying to cover up for shitty politics - not even the CWI shitty politics, marvelously, since apparently you think Militant had been supporting a fascist regime for quite some time - by baiting users.I do? Nope, of course your idea that Militant supported Hafez Al-Assad shows the flaws in your own understanding of Marxism. Viewing something as a bonapartist state and support are not the same thing. And a significant change has taken place in Syria over the last 10 years or so as far as the regime's economic and popular base is concerned.


No, I am sure there are other platoons of Nazis that fight, or claim to fight, alongside the SAR. But hey, Miaja wasn't the only CEDA officer to fight for the Spanish Republic. If you want to argue that Ba'athism is fascist, by all means do so, but as I said, good luck trying to explain the Militant/CWI attitude to Syria then. But relying on vague insinuations is just lazy. I fail to see the relevance of your Spain analogy. Are you saying Assad is the Popular Front? And you hope to justify that position how? My point about Ba'athism is that his is not the first time they have worked with european fascists and that this does in fact matter, as does their ideological and political roots. I think there's a pretty obvious case for calling the Syrian regime objectively reactionary. Which ties back to my question about what you think will happen in the event the regime wins.


Oh, and what if the Ba'ath was fascist? Surely, comrade, you recall how Trotsky discussed the possibility of fascist Brazil being invaded by an imperialist power? Or is that too inconvenient for you?Not at all. I oppose imperialist invasion however my previous question still stands.




Who said anything about "ACAB banners"? Not me, at any rate. Their alleged representative states that:

"The collectives name that I represent is ' Black Lily " a Greek National Socialist organisation with autonomous running and structure. " (From the OP.)

And, right, Nazis using autonomist and anarchist terms isn't anything new. Allegedly they like that shtick quite a bit in the Netherlands. If you think that calling them pseudo-autonomists was an endorsement of their politics, you must think I endorse LaRouche every time I call him a pseudo-Trotskyist.No, autonomous in this context means independent.

[CyM]

These supposed far-right extremists are more leftist than most Trots and Anarchists. Tell me again how many Western Trots or Anarchists, who never stop raving about how much they love their Syrian revolution, have volunteered to fight in Syria on the side of the FSA or the Kurdish YPG? Zero? Oh well.
I'm just going to let you know this and a whole series of other flames against other tendencies is not acceptable. I'm quoting this because it's the most blatant example, but there are others.

Chill out, this is a warning.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Ambition is irrelevant, Iran simply does not have enough capital to export. They can't be imperialist even if they wanted to.

Empirically though, Iran DOES export Capital to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and other places. Perhaps their methods goals aren't always parallel to those of 19th and early 20th century Imperialists, but that doesn't mean that they're not Imperialists. They are much more developed than the Imperialist countries of the 1800s and do have surplus capital to exploit, even if when weighed next to the US and UK it may not "look" Imperialist at first glance due to their weaker economy.


And while Russia is an imperialist centre, they are not seeking regime change in Syria. You don't seem to distinguish between a state being embedded in the system of global capitalism, which is presently in the stage of imperialist capitalism, and an outright imperialist intervention.

The main distinction seems to be that Russia's support for Syria preserves the current state of affairs, while foreign powers want to overturn that state of affairs through intervention. Either way, the people of Syria are just the pawns of the interests of foreign elites.




edit: Sinister Cultural Marxist, apologies for missing your post for the first time.


Its ok! Thanks for responding



I sincerely hope that very few people view ethnically-based handouts as progressive. But that's neither here nor there. Jadid's government was not overtly anti-Kurdish - indeed, as far as I know, the plans to displace the Kurds of Jazira province, drawn up by the People's Party government, were scrapped and would only be implemented after the senior Assad came to power. Jadid should not be romanticised, of course, he was bourgeois through and through, but nationalisation, opposition to Israel, Saudi Arabia etc., all of these were progressive demands. Of course Jadid couldn't accomplish much to meet those demands. It is regrettable that, due to the failure of communist leadership, the proletariat in large part tailed his bourgeois government.

But Jadid, as a figure, remains closer to Chavez or Qassim than to Gemayel or Peron.

I don't think ethnic handouts are progressive, but they ARE a perversion of progressive social demands. IMO that's a critical strategy of fascism. The fascist regime needs to channel populist demands and use them to obtain rightwing objectives.

Also, considering Syria's later support for anti-Zionist movements brought them to support Hamas, an organization which explicitly endorses the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it seems questionable to the extent which Syria's critical attitude to Syria is based on real solidarity with the Palestinians or some very questionable attitudes towards the Jews and their right to live in the Middle East.



Alright, but the use of criminal elements is not in itself evidence of fascism. Most bourgeois states rely on some criminal groups. As for the present status of the shabiha, the stories coming out of Syria are often, as I said, fantastic, and obviously propagandistic in character. I think their impact tends to be overstated.
Most bourgeois states do, but the level to which they do does often seem to correspond with being a fascist movement, because for fascists the laws of the land are not the end but the power which instituted those laws.

I don't doubt that a lot of the stories about the Shabiha are exaggerated, but it doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to it too. For instance, of course the stories of the FRY's atrocities were often exaggerated in the 90s, but the Serbs did commit some terrible acts, and not all accounts were exaggerations.



Alright, but I never said that racism defines fascism. In fact it is perfectly possible to have a fascist government that is not overtly racist - the governments of Peron and Vargas seem to fit the description, at least. And yes, ethnic chauvinism is a serious problem in Syria, and the Ba'ath is responsible for much of it. This does not make the Ba'ath fascist, though. Nor does it obviate the fact that, in the long term, a military victory for the Ba'ath in the present situation is preferable for the proletariat and oppressed groups in Syria. Again, I refer to Trotsky's discussion of a possible imperialist invasion of the Brazilian fascist regime.

Of course, if there was an actual proletarian opposition to the Ba'ath, I would be the first to call for its merciless overthrow. But the willingness of some people on the ostensible left to see proto-Soviets in amorphous bodies with ties to Islamists aside, such an opposition does not exist in any significant number.I agree that racism =/= fascism. Most fascist regimes in history were no more racist than any other Capitalist regimes. However, the source of fascist racism where it did exist seems to be similar to that of Baathist discrimination towards Kurds, etc. In particular, a need to deal with the economic and social antagonisms of their majority population by creating some sort of artificial competition on ethnic lines.

I also don't think what is happening in Syria is comparable to Trotsky's example of an invasion of fascist Brazil, because in Syria most of the revolutionaries are not foreign invaders or British and American soldiers but actual Syrians who feel disaffected and alienated from political power. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the US and various other countries have certainly supported the "Rebels", but there would not be any "rebels" at all were it not for the actual political, social and economic tensions within Syria that drove people to protest in the first place (back before al Nusra was running the show).

Baathism does have a lot of striking parallels to fascist regimes, such as economic corporatism. There is only one big union which is run by the state, "progressive ideals" are used to reduce class antagonisms in the short term without dealing with their root cause, the bourgeoisie is largely state-affiliated, and there is a single political body manages all of this. Their economy in no small part seems to be run along the lines of a fascist corporatist model with some changes relative to the Syrian context. What does seem striking about Syrian fascism is that its anticommunism didn't extend to the international arena, and communist parties were allowed to continue as a sort of "loyal opposition". That doesn't change the nature of the regime, however.



I don't see what good a military victory for the Baath regime would do. It would just further entrench both the economic elite of the Baathist regime and the credibility of armed Islamists as the only viable opposition. What is sad about the Syrian conflict is that two armed groups (the regime and the rebels) are manipulating real and justifiable anxieties among everyday Syrians to further the end of their own power. A Baathist victory would just preserve the very contradictions that led to the revolt, and which created space for the Islamist opposition to flourish in the first place.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, of course that distinction does matter, but say what role does the proletariat play in your supposed proletarian position? So far I haven't seen much of them at all.

Well, in the present situation, the proletariat is not playing an independent political role. That is a shame, but that's how it is. There is no revolutionary leadership that is capable of organising the proletariat as an independent force. The grotesquely degenerated "official" communist parties tail the Ba'ath, the fairly amorphous anarchist and socialist organisations mostly tail the Wahhabis.


Oh and what do you imagine a "victory to the Baa'thist" will entail? I mean in the real beyond posturing slogans.

The death of a large part of the proletariat, probably further neoliberal reforms and concessions to Islamism. I don't idealise the Ba'ath. The only thing that makes Ba'ath military victory preferable is that the military victory of "the opposition" would set back the proletariat even more.


I do? Nope, of course your idea that Militant supported Hafez Al-Assad shows the flaws in your own understanding of Marxism. Viewing something as a bonapartist state and support are not the same thing. And a significant change has taken place in Syria over the last 10 years or so as far as the regime's economic and popular base is concerned.

Grant proclaimed Syria (and Iraq and Burma if I'm not mistaken) deformed workers' states. That means that they were, in Grantist terminology, proletarian-bonapartist. And it does mean that Militant offered qualified support to those state - for example, against (what Militant considered to be) capitalist restoration. Now, this was under Jadid's government, but Jadid's overthrow did not constitute a revolution, so it would follow that the government of the two al-Assads was also a DWS. But now you claim that it is fascist - and presumably that Jadid's government was also fascist - making it bourgeois-bonapartist.


I fail to see the relevance of your Spain analogy. Are you saying Assad is the Popular Front? And you hope to justify that position how?

I think the analogy is clear - both are bourgeois governments that are facing a reactionary insurgency funded by imperialist powers. And, I mean, everything that you have said about the Ba'ath can be said about the Popular Front government. Just replace "Kurds" with "Moroccans".


My point about Ba'athism is that his is not the first time they have worked with european fascists and that this does in fact matter, as does their ideological and political roots. I think there's a pretty obvious case for calling the Syrian regime objectively reactionary. Which ties back to my question about what you think will happen in the event the regime wins.

Quite a lot of governments that are not fascist work with European fascists. I mean, do you think Iran is also fascist? Obviously Iran is an extremely reactionary and thoroughly unpleasant state, but it doesn't have the characteristics of the fascist regime.

Denying that a regime is fascist does not mean supporting that regime, of course.


No, autonomous in this context means independent.

They also talk about MK being a "commune" and so on. I think it's obvious they've assimilated leftist rhetoric. That doesn't make them leftist or somehow less worse, of course. Quite the contrary, if they were smarter they'd be a real problem, posing as leftists and drawing workers to reactionary politics.


Empirically though, Iran DOES export Capital to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and other places. Perhaps their methods goals aren't always parallel to those of 19th and early 20th century Imperialists, but that doesn't mean that they're not Imperialists. They are much more developed than the Imperialist countries of the 1800s and do have surplus capital to exploit, even if when weighed next to the US and UK it may not "look" Imperialist at first glance due to their weaker economy.

As far as I know, they do not export capital in the quantities and using mechanisms that are necessary for imperialism. But I'm open to correction on this - do you have the data, by any chance?


The main distinction seems to be that Russia's support for Syria preserves the current state of affairs, while foreign powers want to overturn that state of affairs through intervention. Either way, the people of Syria are just the pawns of the interests of foreign elites.

The difference is that the regime in Syria is partly the result of the organic development of the Syrian society, not a regime picked by imperialists. We do not oppose imperialist intervention because we believe in some mystic rights of nations, but because we know that the regimes that imperialists directly install will be qualitatively worse than whatever the people were supposedly being liberated from.


Also, considering Syria's later support for anti-Zionist movements brought them to support Hamas, an organization which explicitly endorses the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it seems questionable to the extent which Syria's critical attitude to Syria is based on real solidarity with the Palestinians or some very questionable attitudes towards the Jews and their right to live in the Middle East.

The Syrian government doesn't really care about Palestinians. They slaughtered them in Lebanon without a thought. At the same time, I doubt they care much about Jews either. What they do care about is geopolitical clout, and grandstanding about Israel while doing bugger all against Israeli troops is, well, popular in the Middle East.

Also, I think Syria's support for Hamas is due to the complete impotence of the previous Syrian-backed groups, the as-Saiqa and the PFLP-GC.


Most bourgeois states do, but the level to which they do does often seem to correspond with being a fascist movement, because for fascists the laws of the land are not the end but the power which instituted those laws.

I don't doubt that a lot of the stories about the Shabiha are exaggerated, but it doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to it too. For instance, of course the stories of the FRY's atrocities were often exaggerated in the 90s, but the Serbs did commit some terrible acts, and not all accounts were exaggerations.

Alright, but given the obvious intention of stories about these atrocities to build up support for imperialist intervention against Serbia (that did nothing to help the victims of atrocities by Serb paramilitaries, of course, though it did kill a lot of proletarians who had the poor idea to be born in Serbia), the left was right to be skeptical. Likewise with stories about shabiha etc. etc.


I agree that racism =/= fascism. Most fascist regimes in history were no more racist than any other Capitalist regimes. However, the source of fascist racism where it did exist seems to be similar to that of Baathist discrimination towards Kurds, etc. In particular, a need to deal with the economic and social antagonisms of their majority population by creating some sort of artificial competition on ethnic lines.

Alright, but all racism in bourgeois states is due to the necessity of dividing the proletariat and superexploiting certain sections of it.


I also don't think what is happening in Syria is comparable to Trotsky's example of an invasion of fascist Brazil, because in Syria most of the revolutionaries are not foreign invaders or British and American soldiers but actual Syrians who feel disaffected and alienated from political power. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the US and various other countries have certainly supported the "Rebels", but there would not be any "rebels" at all were it not for the actual political, social and economic tensions within Syria that drove people to protest in the first place (back before al Nusra was running the show).

Perhaps, but again, the same could be said of the PDRA and the Taleban. The point is that, at this stage, the "revolutionaries" are acting as imperialist auxiliaries.


I don't see what good a military victory for the Baath regime would do. It would just further entrench both the economic elite of the Baathist regime and the credibility of armed Islamists as the only viable opposition. What is sad about the Syrian conflict is that two armed groups (the regime and the rebels) are manipulating real and justifiable anxieties among everyday Syrians to further the end of their own power. A Baathist victory would just preserve the very contradictions that led to the revolt, and which created space for the Islamist opposition to flourish in the first place.

Like I said, military victory for the Ba'ath would set the proletarian movement back. But a military victory for the opposition, and the establishment of an Islamist puppet regime in the place of the present government, would set it back even more. And at the moment, these are the only two viable options.

[Smith's Dream]

I was radicalised by the Iraq War in the early 2000s, and I still remember the growing horror I felt when I realised how saturated the cultural landscape around me was with loaded, dehumanizing language about Middle Eastern people. Islamofascists, terrorists, extremists, militants, Islamists, fundamentalists, Bin Ladenites... so on and so forth.

A decade later, it's deeply disturbing to see how otherwise well meaning opponents of imperialism have adopted the language of Bush, Blair, O'Reilly and Hitchens when it comes to the topic of Syria. Cleansing, terrorists, insurgency... do you listen to yourselves? Seriously?

I have less than zero sympathy for the Wahhabi ideology that motivates many of the people fighting in Syria's messy, complex, multifaceted war. I have less than zero sympathy for the corrupt, autocratic family dynasty that Assad leads. I have nothing but distaste for the way various regional and international players are prolonging the Syrian conflict as part of their sectarian and/or imperialist agendas.

Frankly I don't see any reason to be optimistic about Syria's future, either from a revolutionary leftist perspective or just from the standpoint of basic human decency.

We don't always need to take a side. Sometimes the most principled approach (and the most honest and realistic) is to take a step back, say "what a fucking mess" and hope that the situation at least doesn't get any worse.

[Devrim]

Like I said, military victory for the Ba'ath would set the proletarian movement back. But a military victory for the opposition, and the establishment of an Islamist puppet regime in the place of the present government, would set it back even more. And at the moment, these are the only two viable options.

It completely misses the point though. It is not a matter of crystal ball gazing to decide which sides victory would be worse for the working class in the long term. The problem is now, and it is the war itself, not who eventually emerges victorious in it, that is the problem. The problem is that working class people are going out and committing atrocities against other working class people on behalf of other bourgeois factions.

There is, as you put it, no other viable option in Syria. There is no independent working class force in Syria which is about to rise up and put an end to the war and establish workers power. It is an absurd notion. However, the question does not concern Syria alone. Sectarianism is a danger to the working class across the whole region, and in Lebanon in particular there is a very real prospect of the war flooding over Syria's borders and engulfing the working class there.

When left wing organisations in other countries call for support for one side or the other in conflicts such as these what they are doing (in the case of small groups in the west to little effect but in the case of groups in the region itself much more dangerously) is acting as recruiting sergeants for those different bourgeois factions who are fighting this war and their backers the major imperialist powers. It also leads to the increase of sectarian tension in the countries of the region, something which is the anti-thesis of class unity.

The corrects position for revolutionaries in this conflict is not one of backing some so-called revolution, or of throwing their support behind a murderous capitalist state, but one of calling for a plague on both their houses.

Of course there is no independent class force that will rise up in Syria to stop this war, but there are still strong militant working classes in other countries in the region particularly Egypt, Turkey, and Iran. Anybody who takes a position that attempts to tie the workers of these countries to different anti-working class factions, and through this adds to the increase of sectarian tensions within those countries and the region as a whole is a class traitor and should be condemned as such.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It completely misses the point though. It is not a matter of crystal ball gazing to decide which sides victory would be worse for the working class in the long term. The problem is now, and it is the war itself, not who eventually emerges victorious in it, that is the problem. The problem is that working class people are going out and committing atrocities against other working class people on behalf of other bourgeois factions.

There is, as you put it, no other viable option in Syria. There is no independent working class force in Syria which is about to rise up and put an end to the war and establish workers power. It is an absurd notion. However, the question does not concern Syria alone. Sectarianism is a danger to the working class across the whole region, and in Lebanon in particular there is a very real prospect of the war flooding over Syria's borders and engulfing the working class there.

When left wing organisations in other countries call for support for one side or the other in conflicts such as these what they are doing (in the case of small groups in the west to little effect but in the case of groups in the region itself much more dangerously) is acting as recruiting sergeants for those different bourgeois factions who are fighting this war and their backers the major imperialist powers. It also leads to the increase of sectarian tension in the countries of the region, something which is the anti-thesis of class unity.

The corrects position for revolutionaries in this conflict is not one of backing some so-called revolution, or of throwing their support behind a murderous capitalist state, but one of calling for a plague on both their houses.

Of course there is no independent class force that will rise up in Syria to stop this war, but there are still strong militant working classes in other countries in the region particularly Egypt, Turkey, and Iran. Anybody who takes a position that attempts to tie the workers of these countries to different anti-working class factions, and through this adds to the increase of sectarian tensions within those countries and the region as a whole is a class traitor and should be condemned as such.

Devrim

Amusingly enough, as I write this, in one corner of my desk there is a sphere of quartz, although it is much smaller than the stereotypical magical device. But one does not need crystal balls, magical or mundane, to see that a regime installed by imperialist intervention would be qualitatively worse (for the development of a revolutionary communist movement) than the present government, which is in greater part the result of the organic development of Syrian society. This is a basic postulate of the Leninist theory of imperialism, and I think it is very well supported empirically.

And, of course, the Ba'ath is bourgeois through and through. "A plague on both their houses" is technically correct. Even so, in order to preserve what little gains it has made, and to start the struggle after the civil war on a better footing, the proletariat needs to resist the imperialist invasion. I don't see how this is any different from the military support the Bolsheviks gave the Mensheviks, Esers and Kadets (and note that these parties were, at that point, filled with the worst sort of reactionaries and pogromists) against Kornilov.

This does not mean that the proletariat needs to be tied to the Ba'ath in the sense that they need to tail every decision of the Ba'ath government, or worse, that the socialists should delude the masses with lies about how the Ba'ath is proletarian, socialist, is pursuing "noncapitalist development" etc. Any support given to the Ba'ath needs to be military, conditional, and preserve the independence of socialist organisations and the militant propaganda against the Ba'ath needs to continue during the entire duration of the war. If this is followed then, sorry, I do not accept that this is class treason. On the contrary, I think your abstentionist position, while it proceeds from the best of intentions, is objectively desertion in a confusing and difficult situation.

Nor do I see how conditional support for the Ba'ath inside Syria would increase sectarian tensions - unless of course the support is not conditional but unconditional and the "socialist" organisations try to demonise the Sunnis, for example (or Alawites, which I have seen on this site).

[Blake's Baby]

... in order to preserve what little gains it has made, and to start the struggle after the civil war on a better footing, the proletariat needs to resist the imperialist invasion. I don't see how this is any different from the military support the Bolsheviks gave the Mensheviks, Esers and Kadets (and note that these parties were, at that point, filled with the worst sort of reactionaries and pogromists) against Kornilov...

The difference is that Syria is not in the throes of a revolutionary situation. When Kornilov revolted against Kerensky he did so on the basis that Russia needed a strong leader, and Kerensky was weak and unable to deal with the revolting working class.

The conflict in Syria is based on a gaggle of bourgeois interests (backed by foreign powers) rising against a different bourgeois clique (also backed by foreign powers). Trying to conflate 'the interests of the Iranian, Russian and Chinese ruling classes in 2013' with 'the revolution of the Russian workers and their soviets in 1917' is fundamentally mistaken.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

As far as I know, they do not export capital in the quantities and using mechanisms that are necessary for imperialism. But I'm open to correction on this - do you have the data, by any chance?


What "quantities" are necessary for Imperialism? It seems in the modern era, small countries can act imperialistically (Qatar comes to mind).

Iran has imperial interests, mainly in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It is a major supplier for armed groups in Iraq and has extensive ties to the ruling Shia political parties, as well as some of the Kurdish parties. Arguably, Iran won the 2003-2011 Iraq war. It tried to conquer southern Iraq by military means in response to Saddam's invasion during the 80s, but that failed. Iraq is used as a convenient place to launder money to get around sanctions, and allegedly as a place to sell Iranian oil (also around the sanctions). Their support for sectarian Shiite militias and the political parties that back them in Iraq are fairly well documented, and this was done not out of some noble sense of international solidarity but to prop up the political, economic and military interests of Iran. As far as I know it worked quite well. Commerce between the two countries is fairly high, as are the relations between the Iranian government and the ruling party of Iraq. Hezbollah is another significant group, which the Iranians helped set up and are a very important Iranian ally in Lebanon.

The Quds force seems to be the group which is responsible for realizing imperialistic ambitions.


The difference is that the regime in Syria is partly the result of the organic development of the Syrian society, not a regime picked by imperialists. We do not oppose imperialist intervention because we believe in some mystic rights of nations, but because we know that the regimes that imperialists directly install will be qualitatively worse than whatever the people were supposedly being liberated from.
The rebels are also partly a result of the "organic development of Syrian society", even if many have some reactionary religious ideology and others are happy to get American support.


The Syrian government doesn't really care about Palestinians. They slaughtered them in Lebanon without a thought. At the same time, I doubt they care much about Jews either. What they do care about is geopolitical clout, and grandstanding about Israel while doing bugger all against Israeli troops is, well, popular in the Middle East.

Also, I think Syria's support for Hamas is due to the complete impotence of the previous Syrian-backed groups, the as-Saiqa and the PFLP-GC.Well we can agree that they don't care.


Alright, but given the obvious intention of stories about these atrocities to build up support for imperialist intervention against Serbia (that did nothing to help the victims of atrocities by Serb paramilitaries, of course, though it did kill a lot of proletarians who had the poor idea to be born in Serbia), the left was right to be skeptical. Likewise with stories about shabiha etc. etc.Sure, but skepticism is different from assuming it didn't happen.


Alright, but all racism in bourgeois states is due to the necessity of dividing the proletariat and superexploiting certain sections of it.
Yeah but the methods are different, and the ends are the same only in the broadest sense of wanting to obtain surplus value. The exploitation of rightwing nationalism differs in many respects to the exploitation of yet another uninterestingly liberal capitalist country.


Perhaps, but again, the same could be said of the PDRA and the Taleban. The point is that, at this stage, the "revolutionaries" are acting as imperialist auxiliaries. This is a simplistic analysis which takes all the agency from the locals. Many of the movements which were helped by Imperialists for some particular end ultimately became the next generation of autocrats fighting against the Imperialists, and many movements which came to power fighting against Imperialists became the allies of Imperialists.


Like I said, military victory for the Ba'ath would set the proletarian movement back. But a military victory for the opposition, and the establishment of an Islamist puppet regime in the place of the present government, would set it back even more. And at the moment, these are the only two viable options. I don't see how a Baath victory would be preferable if it only replicates the same political antagonisms as that existed before. The best option is some sort of cease fire which opens the space for new voices while minimizing the reactionary violence for a while, instead of one group of authoritarians defeating the other.

[Rurkel]

What "quantities" are necessary for Imperialism? It seems in the modern era, small countries can act imperialistically (Qatar comes to mind).
Well, imperialism and militarism/expansionism/meddling in other countries are different things, though the latter may be a consequence of the former. In the context of the international system, net exporters of capital are imperialist, net importers aren't. This may be complicated by the fact that even net importers can still export it and by the possibility of existence of great powers who are importers (pre-revolutionary Russia, I believe, came close).

[Devrim]

Amusingly enough, as I write this, in one corner of my desk there is a sphere of quartz, although it is much smaller than the stereotypical magical device. But one does not need crystal balls, magical or mundane, to see that a regime installed by imperialist intervention would be qualitatively worse (for the development of a revolutionary communist movement) than the present government, which is in greater part the result of the organic development of Syrian society. This is a basic postulate of the Leninist theory of imperialism, and I think it is very well supported empirically.

I think that you can't see the wood for the trees here. The real question is not one of which post war state would be the least worse for the working class. Both of them would be terrible. That is very clear. The worst thing though is the war itself. That is qualitatively the worst thing for the working class, and for the theoretical development of a revolutionary communist movement at some point in the future.


Any support given to the Ba'ath needs to be military, conditional, and preserve the independence of socialist organisations and the militant propaganda against the Ba'ath needs to continue during the entire duration of the war.

While before you seemed to have a grasp of what the situation was correctly arguing that there were no other viable options here you manage to wander off into some sort of fantasy land. There are no socialist organisations in Syria to preserve the independence of. The working class in Syria is not capable at the moment of acting as a class in order to pursue its own interests. So-called revolutionary groups are tiny, and are being dragged behind different factions in the war. A prime example would be the handful of people they have gathered around the IST, who are currently cheering on the 'revolution', and issuing statements which are, even in the kindest readings, choosing to pander to Sunni sectarianism.

There are no socialist organisations to follow the policy that you recommend. It is pure abstract theorising.


Any support... needs to be military, conditional, and preserve the independence of socialist organisations

I have never understood the Trotskyist concept of military support. What it seems to me to be is not giving military support in any way, but generally giving political support to some states military. The nationalists who this thread was originally about are giving, in however small and pathetic way, military support. This is not what Trotskyists are advocating at all. Are the Spartacist League sending troops to give al-Assad military support, or are they calling on people to give him political support, however critical? I suspect the later. The notion of military support is a way to actually give political support to people it is distasteful to give political support to.


I don't see how this is any different from the military support the Bolsheviks gave the Mensheviks, Esers and Kadets (and note that these parties were, at that point, filled with the worst sort of reactionaries and pogromists) against Kornilov.

BB deals with this below. The main point is that there is no independent working class organisation to give this military support.


Nor do I see how conditional support for the Ba'ath inside Syria would increase sectarian tensions - unless of course the support is not conditional but unconditional and the "socialist" organisations try to demonise the Sunnis, for example (or Alawites, which I have seen on this site).

The war is increasing sectarian tensions, across the entire region, everyday. Organisations which take a side in this war add to this increase in tensions, and as you point out, do end up demonising the other side.

Devrim

[Crux]

Well, in the present situation, the proletariat is not playing an independent political role. That is a shame, but that's how it is. There is no revolutionary leadership that is capable of organising the proletariat as an independent force. The grotesquely degenerated "official" communist parties tail the Ba'ath, the fairly amorphous anarchist and socialist organisations mostly tail the Wahhabis.And we've chosen to tail neither.


The death of a large part of the proletariat, probably further neoliberal reforms and concessions to Islamism. I don't idealise the Ba'ath. The only thing that makes Ba'ath military victory preferable is that the military victory of "the opposition" would set back the proletariat even more. I don't think that is certain, and as far as forces on the ground are concerned the movement behind the original rebellion will have to reorganize in very difficult circumstances no matter the supposed victor in this war. As far as groups with milititary capacities I do remain critically supportive of the YPG, in part because of my sympathy for the Kurdish cause in general but also because they've managed to maintain a level of independent military control over their areas against both the islamists and the Syrian army.



Grant proclaimed Syria (and Iraq and Burma if I'm not mistaken) deformed workers' states. That means that they were, in Grantist terminology, proletarian-bonapartist. And it does mean that Militant offered qualified support to those state - for example, against (what Militant considered to be) capitalist restoration. Now, this was under Jadid's government, but Jadid's overthrow did not constitute a revolution, so it would follow that the government of the two al-Assads was also a DWS. But now you claim that it is fascist - and presumably that Jadid's government was also fascist - making it bourgeois-bonapartist.
That may well be, I have read Grants articles on Syria, but that does not answer what the Ba'athists represent in the present situation.



I think the analogy is clear - both are bourgeois governments that are facing a reactionary insurgency funded by imperialist powers. And, I mean, everything that you have said about the Ba'ath can be said about the Popular Front government. Just replace "Kurds" with "Moroccans".

I could scarcely ask for better example of how far off your analogy is then.



They also talk about MK being a "commune" and so on. I think it's obvious they've assimilated leftist rhetoric. That doesn't make them leftist or somehow less worse, of course. Quite the contrary, if they were smarter they'd be a real problem, posing as leftists and drawing workers to reactionary politics.
Well, fascists have always attempted to co-opt left-wing aesthetics and terminology hence National Socialism (or National Syndicalism for that matter). So I don't see why you'd be confused on that.

[adipocere]

The corrects position for revolutionaries in this conflict is not one of backing some so-called revolution, or of throwing their support behind a murderous capitalist state, but one of calling for a plague on both their houses.



That assumes all things/sides are equal (they are not) not to mention a healthy dose of historical amnesia to ignore that Syria is just another domino in a 70 year crusade of atrocious violence, economic tyranny and social destabilization perpetrated by one particularly large and violent capitalist state and her clients.

Paralysis is never a correct position for revolutionaries. Principled neutrality might as well lay out a red carpet for capitalist imperialism to drive it's tanks down.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, exactly, that Lenin, he should never have taken the view that the Russian state should have been overthrown, he should have said 'Russia is being invaded by a rapacious imperialist neighbour! Let's all defend Russia!'

Or maybe he should have said 'Russia is backwards and Germany is progressive! Let's all support Germany!'

Anything, anything, rather than defend the class interests of the proletariat.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Um no. The conflict in Syria will play out the same regardless of what the keyboard revolutionaries in the first world type about it, stop taking yourself so seriously.

e; not aimed at Blake, this forum is hard to use on a phone and that tapatalk app sucks