How to you guys feel about Bashar Al-Assad?

[VictorSola]

I don't know if this belongs in the opposing ideologies forum, but I am not a communist or generally a leftist or anything so I figured I'd just ask this here. How do you guys feel about Bashar Al-Assad and the whole situation in Syria?

[Tim Cornelis]

Assad is a butcher, mass murderer, oppresser, and heads a state based on Arab nationalism and Alewite favouratism, excluding, especially, Sunnis and Kurds, and now, since 2011, a state that indiscriminately targets people based on their approximate location of opposition strongholds or public gatherings of people, using unprecise bombings and, at least once, chemical weapons. He should be hung, uncontroversially.

There's no prospect of a socialist revolution in Syria, so an independent working class organisation ought to rally behind the demand of a functional liberal democracy as minimum demand. Neither side offers this, with the exception of the Kurdish National Council — and the Wahhabist scum have brought the Dark Ages to parts of Syria.

[VictorSola]

I'm actually Syrian and have family in Syria though and I am told that Assad is a good leader. Syria is one of the last few Secular countries in the Middle East and the rebel opposition are generally extremist Muslims to want to get rid of Assad and install a Muslim fundamentalist government that will truly oppress the people. I support Assad because he is the lesser evil, so i disagree with your post entirely since most of the news I hear about Assad is not from the biased Western media but from actual word of mouth from family I have in the Middle East.

[VictorSola]

I would also like to urge you to read this rtdotcom/op-edge/syria-world-hate-message-604/

Assad is a good leader. A very large majority of the Syrian people support him, so that has to tell you something.

[Dialectical Wizard]

I don't know if this belongs in the opposing ideologies forum, but I am not a communist or generally a leftist or anything so I figured I'd just ask this here. How do you guys feel about Bashar Al-Assad and the whole situation in Syria?




He’s a vile despot, the Syrian civil war is a pseudo struggle. It clearly lacks a real radical-emancipatory opposition. It is basically a religious civil war between Islamic sects…

[tachosomoza]

Fuck Al-Assad. The sad part is that I see people supporting him just because he's anti-American and is buddies with Putin.

[motion denied]

Western backed 'rebels' are no better either.

[consuming negativity]

Yeah, as people above me have said, we don't really have a horse in this race other than there being less people dying for what will inevitably be shit.

[Tim Cornelis]

Western backed 'rebels' are no better either.

Why do you put rebels between 'quotation marks'? Are rebels only rebels when they align with you politically? (No True Scotsman Fallacy).

[rebel] a person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler. How are they not rebels?

[Ember Catching]

There's no prospect of a socialist revolution in Syria, so an independent working class organisation ought to rally behind the demand of a functional liberal democracy as minimum demand. Neither side offers this, with the exception of the Kurdish National Council — and the Wahhabist scum have brought the Dark Ages to parts of Syria.
Incredible. Speaking totally hypothetically, you imagine an independent working-class organization, naturally (that is to say, as a necessary result of it being a working-class organization independent of all other political and military forces) headed by communists, and apparently powerful enough to seriously pose demands, yet you reduce its minimum demand to "functional liberal democracy"? At a time when most workers in the imperialist metropoles themselves have already begun to see through such a system? How else do you think the prospects for proletarian revolution are measured if not precisely by the strength of an organization of the type you imagine?

Bordiga (PBUH) said it'd be like this, but I never thought the democratism would be so unashamed.

[Queen Mab]

There's no prospect of a socialist revolution in Syria, so an independent working class organisation ought to rally behind the demand of a functional liberal democracy as minimum demand.

I agree with the rest of your post....but what?

[motion denied]

Why do you put rebels between 'quotation marks'? Are rebels only rebels when they align with you politically? (No True Scotsman Fallacy).

[rebel] a person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler. How are they not rebels?

Mercenaries are not rebels. But it all may boil down to semantics.

I'm not saying all opposition is composed by mercenaries, however.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

A very large majority of the Syrian people support him, so that has to tell you something.

Thatcher was supported by a majority of British people. Obama has a majority. They could/can still get fucked for all I care. Just because some bourgeois politician has a majority at some period in time by whatever means nothing. We're communists, we look at what's in the interest of our class and Assad is certainly not. Whether or not a majority is, seemingly, unaware of that does not change that.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Bordiga (PBUH)

that's lame

[VictorSola]

Assad also banned GMO seeds for the health of his people

[VictorSola]

Thatcher was supported by a majority of British people. Obama has a majority. They could/can still get fucked for all I care. Just because some bourgeois politician has a majority at some period in time by whatever means nothing. We're communists, we look at what's in the interest of our class and Assad is certainly not. Whether or not a majority is, seemingly, unaware of that does not change that.


So wait, you only look for what is in the best interest of a small minority of people in Syria? That is pretty selfish. 70% of Syrians support Assad and feel that he is a good leader (rightfully so). I think you have been severely misinformed about Assad and his leadership. Even the communist party of Chile supports Assad.

[Queen Mab]

So wait, you only look for what is in the best interest of a small minority of people in Syria?

We support the working class, whatever % of Syria that is. Probably a majority.


Even the communist party of Chile supports Assad.

The Communist Party of Chile supports Michelle Bachelet.

[Tim Cornelis]

Incredible. Speaking totally hypothetically, you imagine an independent working-class organization, naturally (that is to say, as a necessary result of it being a working-class organization independent of all other political and military forces) headed by communists, and apparently powerful enough to seriously pose demands,

Nope. Rally behind existing demands. I suppose literally saying that is kind of confusing.

Then all this falls apart:


yet you reduce its minimum demand to "functional liberal democracy"? At a time when most workers in the imperialist metropoles themselves have already begun to see through such a system? How else do you think the prospects for proletarian revolution are measured if not precisely by the strength of an organization of the type you imagine?

Bordiga (PBUH) said it'd be like this, but I never thought the democratism would be so unashamed.

Also, "At a time when most workers in the imperialist metropoles themselves have already begun to see through such a system?"

What planet are you from?

[VictorSola]

We support the working class, whatever % of Syria that is. Probably a majority.



The Communist Party of Chile supports Michelle Bachelet.

But plenty of the working class in Syria support Assad. They know what is best for themselves. Why do you feel the need to impose your views onto other people?

[Tim Cornelis]

Mercenaries are not rebels. But it all may boil down to semantics.

I'm not saying all opposition is composed by mercenaries, however.

I believe none are, and I have seen no evidence to suggest there are mercenaries involved. Most, I imagine, sincerely believe in the aims of the rebel group they are a member of. That Wahahbist and Salafist rebels are financially backed by oil sheiks from GCC countries does not make them mercenaries.

[tachosomoza]

But plenty of the working class in Syria support Assad. They know what is best for themselves. Why do you feel the need to impose your views onto other people?

Plenty of the working class in the United States support the Republican Party and those that are even farther right than them, who have stated and shown that they are fundamentally against the working class. Being working class doesn't necessarily equate to being class conscious or knowing what's inherently in the best interests of your class. Especially when you're a member of a divided, internally hostile, and broken working class.

[Queen Mab]

Why do you feel the need to impose your views onto other people?

Communists intervene in struggles not to impose their views but to help workers formulate their own interests.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah that's what we're doing, we're going to Syria and saying 'hate Assad! Hate Assad! Just to piss of some guy who isn't a leftist and likes the Communist Party of Chile!'

Why do you have to impose your views on other people? You're stating opinions like Assad's a 'good leader' as facts. they're not, they're just your reading of things. So before you complain about other people's behaviour, examine your own.

[VictorSola]

Communists intervene in struggles not to impose their views but to help workers formulate their own interests.


Sure but most people in Syria are Muslim or Christian. They don't want communism, even if they are working class.

[Tim Cornelis]

But plenty of the working class in Syria support Assad. They know what is best for themselves. Why do you feel the need to impose your views onto other people?

The majority of the working class presumably supported Hitler in 1940. I suppose, then, that being opposed to Nazism in 1940 was imposing our views on others.


Assad also banned GMO seeds for the health of his people

What a saint. Then he bombs those people into oblivion. How nice.


So wait, you only look for what is in the best interest of a small minority of people in Syria? That is pretty selfish. 70% of Syrians support Assad and feel that he is a good leader (rightfully so). I think you have been severely misinformed about Assad and his leadership. Even the communist party of Chile supports Assad.

That 70% thing originated from one unsourced news article from some obscure site, it references a NATO report I have never been able to find. I do not consider the Communist Party of Chile communists, they are bourgeois-socialists.

I don't mind selfishness per se.

[VictorSola]

Yeah that's what we're doing, we're going to Syria and saying 'hate Assad! Hate Assad! Just to piss of some guy who isn't a leftist and likes the Communist Party of Chile!'

Why do you have to impose your views on other people? You're stating opinions like Assad's a 'good leader' as facts. they're not, they're just your reading of things. So before you complain about other people's behaviour, examine your own.


Assad actually is a good leader. Most of his population support him. That is why I can say that as a fact. If he was a terrible oppressor and a disgusting pig then his approval rate would be 0 and everyone would want him out. But it's only about 10% of the population that wants him gone and most of those people are Muslim fundamentalists who don't like the fact Syria is a secular country. Also all this crap about Assad gassing his own people is ridiculous. You guys are saying Assad is a bad leader because he is some bourgeois pig and he oppresses people? Are you listening to yourselves? What kind of hypocrites are you? Do you not remember what Stalin, Lenin and other leaders did to the people of the USSR? They basically just executed people who they didn't like or sent them away to gulags. Not to mention they would keep great amounts of the best food for themselves and their friends/family while other people were starving while lining up for a little bit of bread.

[Creative Destruction]

Assad also banned GMO seeds for the health of his people

lol. well, GMO seeds that are currently in use do not adversely affect the health of humans. the food produced with GMO seeds doesn't, anyway. and considering that Syria was in the middle of a historical drought, and given that GMO seeds are made to withstand issues like that, it's pretty shitty that he would do something like this.

[Dialectical Wizard]

Assad actually is a good leader. Most of his population support him. That is why I can say that as a fact. If he was a terrible oppressor and a disgusting pig then his approval rate would be 0 and everyone would want him out. But it's only about 10% of the population that wants him gone and most of those people are Muslim fundamentalists who don't like the fact Syria is a secular country. Also all this crap about Assad gassing his own people is ridiculous. You guys are saying Assad is a bad leader because he is some bourgeois pig and he oppresses people? Are you listening to yourselves? What kind of hypocrites are you? Do you not remember what Stalin, Lenin and other leaders did to the people of the USSR? They basically just executed people who they didn't like or sent them away to gulags. Not to mention they would keep great amounts of the best food for themselves and their friends/family while other people were starving while lining up for a little bit of bread.



Not every communist is a Stalinist or a Leninist, you clearly don’t know a lot about leftism in general.

[Creative Destruction]

Assad actually is a good leader. Most of his population support him. That is why I can say that as a fact. If he was a terrible oppressor and a disgusting pig then his approval rate would be 0 and everyone would want him out. But it's only about 10% of the population that wants him gone and most of those people are Muslim fundamentalists who don't like the fact Syria is a secular country. Also all this crap about Assad gassing his own people is ridiculous. You guys are saying Assad is a bad leader because he is some bourgeois pig and he oppresses people? Are you listening to yourselves? What kind of hypocrites are you? Do you not remember what Stalin, Lenin and other leaders did to the people of the USSR? They basically just executed people who they didn't like or sent them away to gulags. Not to mention they would keep great amounts of the best food for themselves and their friends/family while other people were starving while lining up for a little bit of bread.

I'm not a Leninist or a Stalinist, so how am I being hypocritical? I think you're just being stupid.

[Blake's Baby]

Assad actually is a good leader...

Opinion, 'actually'. As you don't say what you consider 'good', nor provide any standard by which it can be measured, it's meaningless. You like him. We get that.




Most of his population support him. That is why I can say that as a fact...

Hitler was a good leader, Thatcher was a good leader, Nixon was a good leader, Amin was a good leader, Mugabe was a good leader, Franco was a good leader, Ghengis Khan was a good leader. I'm sure you love them all equally.

So what? Some people support their head of state. Gosh, I've literally never seen that phenomenon happening before.

By the way, praising Assad and condemning Stalin? That's hypocrisy; and it also lost you the only friends you'll have on this forum, the Stalinists, who like Assad. Not sure if it's for the same reasons you do, as your main objection to the rebels seems to be that they're Muslim. Are you some kind of Christian nutcase who believes in a 'clash of cultures between East and West' or something?

[Tim Cornelis]

You're quite the naive idiot.


Assad actually is a good leader.

No, he's not.


Most of his population support him.

I very much doubt it. If they do, it's only because they fear Salafists more. More accurate would be to see whether the Syrian people in 2010 supported him and to what extent.


That is why I can say that as a fact.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow that therefore you can call it a fact, since it's not a fact. Argumentum ad populum is another fallacy you apply.


If he was a terrible oppressor and a disgusting pig then his approval rate would be 0 and everyone would want him out.

Circular reasoning. It's generally said that even dictatorships need to rely on about 30% of the population to be durable. Worse dictators than Assad have enjoyed more broad popular support than him (e.g. Stalin, Hitler).


But it's only about 10% of the population that wants him gone

70-90% approval rating is highly implausible. You're a highflyer pulling percentages out of your arse. [citation needed] in other words.


and most of those people are Muslim fundamentalists who don't like the fact Syria is a secular country.

Secular-ish. Even the Constitution states law is to be based on sharia.


Also all this crap about Assad gassing his own people is ridiculous.

No it's not. The UN expert panel calculated the trajectory of the missiles that caused the infamous chemical attack some time ago and saw that it was fired from a hill or mountainside where elite troops and a special army division of Assad's army was stationed. I'm inclined to say that it's fair to presume his troops did the attack, though it may not have personally been authorised by Assad.


You guys are saying Assad is a bad leader because he is some bourgeois pig and he oppresses people?

Yes.


Are you listening to yourselves?

Yes.


What kind of hypocrites are you?

None that I'm aware of.


Do you not remember what Stalin, Lenin and other leaders did to the people of the USSR?

Yes. Stalin was a bourgeois pig and oppressor. Tu quoque fallacy. I don't see how being consistent in this regard makes me a hypocrite.


They basically just executed people who they didn't like or sent them away to gulags.

But, but, Stalin had a high approval rating, therefore it follows that these well documented crimes by Stalin could not be true otherwise he would not have such a high approval rating -- that'd be your logic. Are you listening to yourself?


Not to mention they would keep great amounts of the best food for themselves and their friends/family while other people were starving while lining up for a little bit of bread.

Not unlike besieging cities and starving them like Assad, hmmmm....

[Devrim]

There's no prospect of a socialist revolution in Syria, so an independent working class organisation ought to rally behind the demand of a functional liberal democracy as minimum demand. Neither side offers this, with the exception of the Kurdish National Council — and the Wahhabist scum have brought the Dark Ages to parts of Syria.

There is no prospect of an independent working class organisation either.

Devrim

[consuming negativity]

edit: looked at the post under mine and was clearly wrong about VictorSola not being a shitty troll

[VictorSola]

Haha oh man. Now I realize why nobody takes you communists/extreme leftists seriously. You are all delusional, hypocritical morons. You are also closeted fascists. I mean, it's so obvious. At least fascist scumbags have the balls to admit it but you guys hide it under the disguise of an ideology that only looks nice on paper :laugh:. You guys are a laughing stock. No wonder why communism is a dead ideology.

[Comrade Chernov]

I believe none are, and I have seen no evidence to suggest there are mercenaries involved. Most, I imagine, sincerely believe in the aims of the rebel group they are a member of. That Wahahbist and Salafist rebels are financially backed by oil sheiks from GCC countries does not make them mercenaries.

The Free Syrian Army is basically a non-factor at this point. The islamist groups have formed their own faction that's been bolstered by dozens of groups that formerly were part of the FSA, but in the last few months have been increasingly radicalized.

It's a bourgeois murderer and his cronies versus radical islamists.

I'm sympathetic to the Kurds, though I've been told that Kurdish National Liberation is in the same vein as the birth of Israel ("a nation based on the common interest of a single group"), so I've been more and more wary of the Kurdish movement at this point. It's quite nationalistic.

[Tim Cornelis]

There is no prospect of an independent working class organisation either.

Devrim

In a sense of a mass movement no, but small [not clandestine, but cadre maybe? I forgot the word] groups linked together in a network backing the demand of liberal democracy as minimum demand while maintaining class independence to grow and continue agitating against liberal democracy once it's been accomplished, expose its inability to solve such and such social crises, can be formed.



I'm sympathetic to the Kurds, though I've been told that Kurdish National Liberation is in the same vein as the birth of Israel ("a nation based on the common interest of a single group"), so I've been more and more wary of the Kurdish movement at this point. It's quite nationalistic.

Whatever the flaws of the Kurdish Supreme Committee (in a previous comment I conflated it with the KNC), I very much doubt it'll end up like a Kurdish Israel. There's nothing to suggest the Kurds seek to exclude Armenians, Assyrians, and Arabs, and have increasingly sought to integrate members of these groups into their organisations.

[Skyhilist]

There aren't any major forces in Syria that represent working class interests. Fuck them all.

[Comrade Chernov]

I hope that there is no chance of a Kurdish Israel, and from what I've seen the Kurds look too genuine to care about or even want something like that, though it's always a possibility. Either way, the Kurds will be the ones I continue supporting, if only because their example ought to provide inspiration to the workers of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. Perhaps, even, to the entire middle east.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm actually Syrian and have family in Syria though and I am told that Assad is a good leader. Syria is one of the last few Secular countries in the Middle East and the rebel opposition are generally extremist Muslims to want to get rid of Assad and install a Muslim fundamentalist government that will truly oppress the people. I support Assad because he is the lesser evil, so i disagree with your post entirely since most of the news I hear about Assad is not from the biased Western media but from actual word of mouth from family I have in the Middle East.

There are many on the Left who agree with you. You're not really going to find them here, though. I support Assad and the Syrian government completely in its fight against the imperialist-backed rebels. Syria is not socialist, though, and internally it does still exploit the working class. If you want to read about it from that perspective, there are a lot of articles on workers.org on the situation.

[Tim Cornelis]

There are many on the Left who agree with you. You're not really going to find them here, though. I support Assad and the Syrian government completely in its fight against the imperialist-backed rebels. Syria is not socialist, though, and internally it does still exploit the working class. If you want to read about it from that perspective, there are a lot of articles on workers.org on the situation.

Well yeah, you're in the WWP, of course you're crazy.

[Raquin]

I think he is pretty decent guy. Not as good a President as his father was though, but competent enough to prevent his country from falling to mercenaries and Wahhabi warlords sponsored, trained and armed by the most powerful and wealthiest countries in the world and the region, from the US, the UK, France and Turkey to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Morsi's Egypt. It's Bay of Pigs x1,000.


Assad is a butcher, mass murderer, oppresser,
Butcher, mass murderer and oppressor? I'd like to see a historical communist leader of note that hasn't mass murdered, butchered and oppressed. Butchering, mass-murdering and oppressing is the pillar of any government in crisis. If NATO and the GCC didn't invade Syria, there would be no crisis. Blame NATO and GCC for the killing, then.


and heads a state based on Arab nationalism and Alewite favouratism, excluding, especially, Sunnis and Kurds, and now
Please provide some evidence that the Bashshar al-Assad's government discriminates in favor of Alewites and excludes Sunnis. This is a decades-old Muslim Brotherhood propaganda line that doesn't have any basis in reality. The Syrian Ba'ath government is a secular government. It has never discriminated against normal Sunnis, only Sunni Islamists. In fact, most of the ruling class, the main cadres in the armed forces and most of the government is Sunni.

Just look at the make-up of the Syrian Cabinet under President Bashshar Assad. The Prime Minister, Wael Al-Halqi, is Sunni. All three Deputy Prime Ministers are Sunni, and the fourth one who was sacked in October last year was an atheist communist with a Christian background. The Foreign Affairs Minister, Walid Muallem, is a Sunni. The Defense Minister, Fahed Al-Freij, is a Sunni. The Justice Minister, Najm al-Hamad, is a Sunni. The Interior Minister, Mohammad al-Shaar, is a Sunni. And in the armed forces, The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, Ali Ayub, is a Sunni. The Chief of Air Staff is also a Sunni, Issam Hallaq. Even Syria's permanent represntative to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, is a Sunni. Hell, Bashshar al-Assad himself is married to a Homsi Sunni.

All this "Syria is dominated by a secret Alawite cabal" conspiracy theory amounts to is a Syrian Muslim Brotherhood version of the Western fascist "America is controlled by a secret Jewish cabal!" narrative and you shame yourself by repeating it.


since 2011, a state that indiscriminately targets people based on their approximate location of opposition strongholds or public gatherings of people, using unprecise bombings and
I agree that it's tragic when aiming to kill Takfiri combatants, the Syrian Arab Army and the National Defense Forces occasionally miss and hit civilians instead. The barrel bombing incidents in Aleppo are the most tragic of all. But I fail to see how Assad bears responsibility for that. Blame the rebels for setting up shop near civilians and using them as human shields.


at least once, chemical weapons
It's actually been all but proven that the Takfiris were responsible for 21 August attacks.

[Comrade Chernov]

It should be mentioned that the Syrian government =/= Assad.

I support the Syrian state against imperialism, but I support the workers over the Syrian state. Beating imperialism is the goal for now, but in the long run we can't portray the Syrian government as some kind of damsel in distress, because they're imperialists, the puppets of Putin's imperialism-in-the-name-of-anti-American-imperialism.

[Devrim]

In a sense of a mass movement no, but small [not clandestine, but cadre maybe? I forgot the word] groups linked together in a network backing the demand of liberal democracy as minimum demand while maintaining class independence to grow and continue agitating against liberal democracy once it's been accomplished, expose its inability to solve such and such social crises, can be formed.

What good will demanding liberal democracy do?


Whatever the flaws of the Kurdish Supreme Committee (in a previous comment I conflated it with the KNC), I very much doubt it'll end up like a Kurdish Israel. There's nothing to suggest the Kurds seek to exclude Armenians, Assyrians, and Arabs, and have increasingly sought to integrate members of these groups into their organisations.

They are openly advocating ethnic cleansing of Arabs.

Devrim

[tachosomoza]

What good will demanding liberal democracy do?


It is better than getting gassed and murdered by an Alawite dictator and serves as a stepping stone for a workers' takeover.

[Leftsolidarity]

What good will demanding liberal democracy do?


I know you're not a Leninist but:


Only those who are totally incapable of thinking, only those who are entirely unfamiliar with Marxism will conclude that... freedom of divorce is of no use, that democracy is of no use, that self-determination of nations is of no use. Marxists know... that the more complete freedom of divorce is, the clearer it will be to the woman that the source of her 'domestic slavery' is not the lack of rights, but, capitalism. The more democratic the system of government is, the clearer it will be to the workers that the root of evil is not the lack of rights, but capitalism. - Lenin

[Per Levy]

It is better than getting gassed and murdered by an Alawite dictator and serves as a stepping stone for a workers' takeover.

because liberal democracys have the tendency to fall to worker takeovers?


Haha oh man. Now I realize why nobody takes you communists/extreme leftists seriously. You are all delusional, hypocritical morons. You are also closeted fascists. I mean, it's so obvious. At least fascist scumbags have the balls to admit it but you guys hide it under the disguise of an ideology that only looks nice on paper :laugh:. You guys are a laughing stock. No wonder why communism is a dead ideology.

you're funny i give you that, there isnt much else though, wich is sad.

[Comrade Jacob]

A bad leader, but he is however one of the leaders of anti-imperialism at the moment. So like him or not, we need to stand behind his effort.

[tachosomoza]

because liberal democracys have the tendency to fall to worker takeovers?


It will generate the climate that will lead to eventual workers' control of the government, if the workers are class conscious, organized and aware of the inherently exploitative and harmful nature of capitalism. Yes, having a liberal democracy I believe will be a transition state to socialism in Syria.

[Queen Mab]

A bad leader, but he is however one of the leaders of anti-imperialism at the moment. So like him or not, we need to stand behind his effort.

The bankruptcy of anti-imperialism expressed in a single post

[Per Levy]

A bad leader, but he is however one of the leaders of anti-imperialism at the moment. So like him or not, we need to stand behind his effort.

yes the guy who is knee-deep entrenched into russian and chinese imperialism is the "leader of anti-imperialism", makes totally sense.


It will generate the climate that will lead to eventual workers' control of the government, if the workers are class conscious, organized and aware of the inherently exploitative and harmful nature of capitalism. Yes, having a liberal democracy I believe will be a transition state to socialism in Syria.

i dont know, building up another bourgois democracy(like there are so many) will only be another way of the syrian bourgoisie to rule and organize the state, and workers will die to achive that.


Only those who are totally incapable of thinking, only those who are entirely unfamiliar with Marxism will conclude that... freedom of divorce is of no use, that democracy is of no use, that self-determination of nations is of no use. Marxists know... that the more complete freedom of divorce is, the clearer it will be to the woman that the source of her 'domestic slavery' is not the lack of rights, but, capitalism. The more democratic the system of government is, the clearer it will be to the workers that the root of evil is not the lack of rights, but capitalism.

the liberal democracy the bolsheviks did build up impressed me a lot.

[tachosomoza]

i dont know, building up another bourgois democracy(like there are so many) will only be another way of the syrian bourgoisie to rule and organize the state, and workers will die to achive that

And when the organized, class conscious workers are aware of the extent of the bourgeois corruption of their democracy and their state, they will sweep the bourgeoisie and their lackeys into the rivers like the sewage they are, through ballot or bullet or both.

[Per Levy]

And when the organized, class conscious workers are aware of the extent of the bourgeois corruption of their democracy and their state, they will sweep the bourgeoisie and their lackeys into the rivers like the sewage they are, through ballot or bullet or both.

but where has that happend? most workers who live under liberal democracys just have accepted that there is corruption and that no partys really represents their interests and just go on with their lives.

[tachosomoza]

but where has that happend? most workers who live under liberal democracys just have accepted that there is corruption and that no partys really represents their interests and just go on with their lives.

That's not a reason to forsake principles, give up hope, stop building class consciousness and solidarity, and stoop to backing bourgeois despotic murderers in the name of anti-imperialism.

[Tenka]

I support NATO and whatever not bombing the shit out of Syrians, is all. Of course their leader is a butcher and sucks--same with most bourgeois heads of state. I am not sure how it's any special case except the western bourgeoisie seem intent on seeing Assad replaced by whomever.

P.S. As usual, I didn't read most of the thread or even the OP, but scattered later posts herein.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That's not a reason to forsake principles, give up hope, stop building class consciousness and solidarity, and stoop to backing bourgeois despotic murderers in the name of anti-imperialism.

Because if one is against these sort of liberal values tirades one is a fan of Assad? The WWP are, of course, but they are daft beyond belief. One does not have to pick a favourite in a battle of despicable scum.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

But plenty of the working class in Syria support Assad. They know what is best for themselves. Why do you feel the need to impose your views onto other people?

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance."

[tachosomoza]

Because if one is against these sort of liberal values tirades one is a fan of Assad? The WWP are, of course, but they are daft beyond belief. One does not have to pick a favourite in a battle of despicable scum.

You misunderstand. I don't support Assad the butcher or the Islamicist rebels who'd build a carbon copy of Iran in Syria, I support what I believe would be the best and most implementable course of action for Syrian workers at this time that will lead to better things when the Syrian proletariat is ready to take action and force them.

[Ember Catching]

Also, "At a time when most workers in the imperialist metropoles themselves have already begun to see through such a system?"

What planet are you from?
One where voter turnout has experienced a general decline in "developed" countries over the last few decades, and where lost faith in democracy and politicians is increasingly a mainstream view.


In a sense of a mass movement no, but small [not clandestine, but cadre maybe? I forgot the word] groups linked together in a network backing the demand of liberal democracy as minimum demand while maintaining class independence to grow and continue agitating against liberal democracy once it's been accomplished, expose its inability to solve such and such social crises, can be formed.
This is not 1848, when communists could principledly back the demand of liberal democracy as a core demand of the bourgeois revolution against the old classes of Europe, and then immediately afterwards hope to turn whatever guns they had on the ascendant bourgeoisie. Parliamentary democracy is the very antithesis of class independence — that is to say, it is class collaboration — and that you claim a hypothetical organization independent of all other political and military forces should accede to such an "existing demand", which is then necessarily the demand of other political and military forces, is cognitive dissonance itself.

[Creative Destruction]

A bad leader, but he is however one of the leaders of anti-imperialism at the moment. So like him or not, we need to stand behind his effort.

No, this is some dumb "my enemy's enemy is my friend" bullshit. Fuck that noise.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Assad actually is a good leader.

I know you're trolling and i'm sure you're finding this all very funny and hope you're enjoying yourself behind your keyboard, but this is just ridiculous.

I mean, have you seen Syria? NGOs are calling the humanitarian situation in Syria right now the worst they have ever seen. Ever seen. In what world does the 'leader' of a country that, due to civil war, is experiencing the worst humanitarian situation ever seen, qualify as good?

You may be a good troll but you really are a shit if you think that Assad is a good leader. He's a murderous, power-hungry bastard and is just as bad as any of the rebels.

[Devrim]

It is better than getting gassed and murdered by an Alawite dictator and serves as a stepping stone for a workers' takeover.

I don't think that Assad is actually gassing anybody at the moment. That is not to say he wouldn't consider it, but he isn't doing it at the moment.

The question is what use small groups of socialists calling for a liberal democracy would make. There isn't going to be a liberal democracy in the Western sense in Syria after this war. If there is any sort of democracy instituted it will not be a liberal one in any sense. It's a pipe dream. They would be swept along in the wake of various bourgeois political forces.

There is no workers' takeover on the horizon. The working class in Syria is butchering itself at the moment. It is not about to take over as soon as a liberal democracy in instituted.


It will generate the climate that will lead to eventual workers' control of the government, if the workers are class conscious, organized and aware of the inherently exploitative and harmful nature of capitalism. Yes, having a liberal democracy I believe will be a transition state to socialism in Syria.

Why should this be true?

Devrim

[Devrim]

I know you're not a Leninist but:
Blah, blah, blah, blah
- Lenin

No, I am not, but even if I were, I wouldn't be one who thought you could blindly apply people's politics like holy dogma to completely different situations.

Devrim

[Devrim]

You misunderstand. I don't support Assad the butcher or the Islamicist rebels who'd build a carbon copy of Iran in Syria, I support what I believe would be the best and most implementable course of action for Syrian workers at this time that will lead to better things when the Syrian proletariat is ready to take action and force them.

A state built by Islamicists in Syria would be of a very different nature to the one in Iran, not least because they both come from totally opposed religious groups.

Devrim

[Tim Cornelis]

I think he is pretty decent guy.
Of course you think that, you have a weak for Bonapartist strongmen.

Not as good a President as his father was though, but competent enough to prevent his country from falling to mercenaries and Wahhabi warlords sponsored, trained and armed by the most powerful and wealthiest countries in the world and the region, from the US, the UK, France and Turkey to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Morsi's Egypt. It's Bay of Pigs x1,000.
Mercenaries? [citation needed]. Stop using buzzwords, it's annoying. It's also Vietnam x0.0000005, like instead of dropping more kg bombs on Syria than were dropped in total in WW2 as with Vietnam, they, the US, send walkie talkies, so... You know, it depends on what analogy you want to draw I suppose.

Butcher, mass murderer and oppressor? I'd like to see a historical communist leader of note that hasn't mass murdered, butchered and oppressed.
Well gee, I oppose all of those mass murdering oppressive so-called 'communist' leaders that headed bourgeois states that managed capital, so what do I care? Can the Syrian people take consolidation in the fact that when incendiary device is dropped on their house killing people left and right that Assad has still killed far less people than Mao and Stalin? You should tell 'em that.

Butchering, mass-murdering and oppressing is the pillar of any government in crisis.
Is it? Define crisis.

If NATO and the GCC didn't invade Syria,
If Assad had stepped down there would be no crisis, and no civil war, and no Salafist and Wahhabist influx.

Blame NATO and GCC for the killing, then.
Haha, what a warped logic you must have. Assad's regime uses chemical weapons and makes people choke on their own fucking blood but it's the NATO's fault, of course, not Assad's.

Please provide some evidence that the Bashshar al-Assad's government discriminates in favor of Alewites and excludes Sunnis.
Alewites are over-represented in high ranked positions.
Under Sunni-dominated Syria, the Alawi minority faced discrimination as heretics.* However, once Hafez al-Assad, an Alawi, seized power in 1970, group members rapidly gained privileged status.* Assad surrounded himself with Alawis, especially stocking them in key state security roles.* The Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni organization, targeted Alawis for violence during the 1970s, but the regime crushed the group in a 1982 massacre.*
Alawis maintained their privileged status when Assad's son Bashar assumed the presidency following his death in 2000.* It is important to note that whilst government is dominated by Alawi leaders, there are also Alawis among the opposition.* As one human rights activist told the International Crisis Group in 2003, ‘It is not the case of a confessional community that governs; instead it is the case of a group that uses a confessional group to govern.'
Current issues
Alawis remain dominant in Syria, although they only make up 11 per cent of the population.* Religious disdain for and resentment of Alawis among many in the 74-per-cent Sunni country, and Alawi memories of state discrimination before 1970, provide an added incentive for Alawi officials in the regime to fear the possibility of Syria's democratization.
http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5271&tmpl=printpage


This is a decades-old Muslim Brotherhood propaganda line that doesn't have any basis in reality. The Syrian Ba'ath government is a secular government.
Secular-ish. They say they base themselves on sharia and there's propaganda like this:
For the first time, the regime celebrated the*Prophet's birth*with greater fanfare than the anniversary of the ruling party. Billboards once heralding `progressiveness and socialism` were also being replaced with new admonitions: `Pray for the*Prophet*and Do not forget to mention God.` President*Bashar Assad*had recently approved Syria's first Islamic university as well as three Islamic banks. And Mohammed Habash, the head of the Islamic Studies Center, had been invited to speak on Islam at Syria's military academy - where praying had been banned 25 years earlier. ... In the 1980s, a distinct minority of women in*Damascus*wore*hejab, or modest Islamic dress. In 2006, a distinct majority in Syria's most modern city had put it on.
Wright, Robin,*Dreams and Shadows*: the Future of the Middle East, Penguin Press, 2008, p.245

It has never discriminated against normal Sunnis, only Sunni Islamists. In fact, most of the ruling class, the main cadres in the armed forces and most of the government is Sunni.
[citation needed]

Just look at the make-up of the Syrian Cabinet under President Bashshar Assad. The Prime Minister, Wael Al-Halqi, is Sunni. All three Deputy Prime Ministers are Sunni, and the fourth one who was sacked in October last year was an atheist communist with a Christian background. The Foreign Affairs Minister, Walid Muallem, is a Sunni. The Defense Minister, Fahed Al-Freij, is a Sunni. The Justice Minister, Najm al-Hamad, is a Sunni. The Interior Minister, Mohammad al-Shaar, is a Sunni. And in the armed forces, The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, Ali Ayub, is a Sunni. The Chief of Air Staff is also a Sunni, Issam Hallaq. Even Syria's permanent represntative to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, is a Sunni. Hell, Bashshar al-Assad himself is married to a Homsi Sunni.
Okay okay, but are they underrepresented still or is this proportional?

All this "Syria is dominated by a secret Alawite cabal" conspiracy theory
Whatever, I never said that, so shove your strawman elsewhere. The Assad regime favours Alewites disproportionally in high ranking positions, that does not make it an Alewite regime, sure, nor is it secret. Nor on par with the ZOG conspiracy theory.

I agree that it's tragic when aiming to kill Takfiri combatants, the Syrian Arab Army and the National Defense Forces occasionally miss and hit civilians instead.
I'm sure when Israel does the same against Sunni Extremists in Gaza you display the exact same nuance, right? It's not collateral damage, entire neighbourhoods are targeted you idiot.

The barrel bombing incidents in Aleppo are the most tragic of all. But I fail to see how Assad bears responsibility for that.
Eeeeh you know, by either authorising them or enabling them.

Blame the rebels for setting up shop near civilians and using them as human shields.
It always baffles me when people say this. You're right, we should expect of rebels fighting a government to stand in a field in the middle of nowhere and await aerial bombings, as oppose to hide in infrastructure. And I'm sure you come to the defence of the IDF when they do the same. I'm sure when Turkey bombed dozens of unarmed Kurds, you played apologetics for it and blamed the PKK instead, right?

It's actually been all but proven that the Takfiris were responsible for 21 August attacks.
Takfiris, m'okay. I like how creative (tacit) Assad supporters get with Islamic terms.
The only reliable, on the ground, research I'm familiar with was done was by UN experts and they calculated the trajectory of the missiles that exclusively hit contested and opposition held areas (hmmmm) and found they were fired from a base where government special forces were stationed (hmmmm).
When United Nations investigators published their report on the incident on Monday, they were forbidden from naming the perpetrator. But they did reveal the trajectories flown by two of the missiles.
Human Rights Watch used that data to pinpoint the locations from which the weapons were launched. “When mapping these trajectories, the presumed flight paths of the rockets converge on a well-known military base of the Republican Guard 104th Brigade,” said HRW.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10316367/Chemical-weapons-launched-from-regime-held-military-base-HRW-say.html
A senior U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because some of this material was from private meetings, said: "It was 100 percent clear that the regime used chemical weapons."
The diplomat cited five key details, including the scale of the attack, the quality of the sarin, the type of rockets, the warheads used and the rockets' trajectory.
A Human Rights Watch report also said the presumed flight path of the rockets cited by the U.N. inspectors' report led back to a Republican Guard base in Mount Qassioun.
"Connecting the dots provided by these numbers allows us to see for ourselves where the rockets were likely launched from and who was responsible," said Josh Lyons, a satellite imagery analyst for the New York-based group. But, he added, the evidence was "not conclusive."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/syria-chemical-weapons-attack_n_3951222.html
That doesn't sound at all like the armed opposition is proved to have done it.
And to restate discrimination against Kurds:
Discrimination and Repression against Kurds
Kurds, Syria's largest non-Arab ethnic minority, remain subject to systematic discrimination, including the arbitrary denial of citizenship to an estimated 300,000 Syria-born Kurds. Authorities suppress expressions of Kurdish identity, and prohibit the teaching of Kurdish in schools. On February 28, 2009, security forces violently dispersed Kurds who had gathered to protest the decree restricting real estate transactions in border areas, and subsequently detained 21 demonstrators. In March police stopped a musical event organized by a Kurdish political party in Qamishli, and security forces broke up gatherings celebrating the Kurdish New Year in Qamishli and Derbassiyeh.
Security forces detained at least nine prominent Kurdish political leaders in 2009, including, on January 10, Mustapha Jum`a, acting general secretary of the Azadi Party. On April 14 a military court sentenced two Yekiti party leaders, Fuad `Aliko and Hasan Saleh, to 8 and 13 months in prison respectively for membership in an unlicensed political organization. On May 11 a criminal court sentenced Mesh`al Tammo, spokesperson for the Kurdish Future Movement in Syria, to three-and-a-half years in prison for "weakening national sentiments" and "broadcasting false information." On October 20 a criminal court sentenced Ibrahim Berro, a Yekiti party leader, to eight months in prison for membership in an unlicensed political organization.



One where voter turnout has experienced a general decline in "developed" countries over the last few decades,

And how does that translate to the majority of workers having no faith in liberal democracy? I also don't see how rising cynicism of the electorate is a problem. I do not defend liberal democracy for liberal democracy's sake.


This is not 1848, when communists could principledly back the demand of liberal democracy as a core demand of the bourgeois revolution against the old classes of Europe, and then immediately afterwards hope to turn whatever guns they had on the ascendant bourgeoisie. Parliamentary democracy is the very antithesis of class independence — that is to say, it is class collaboration —

Participation in it and electoral alliances is, which is not what I advocate.


and that you claim a hypothetical organization independent of all other political and military forces should accede to such an "existing demand", which is then necessarily the demand of other political and military forces, is cognitive dissonance itself.

Cognitive dissonance is a feeling, not a position, by the way. But no, it's not contradictory (or "cognitive dissonance"), nor have you provided an argument for this. Its class independence is that it does not enter into temporal or permanent political coalitions with other groups, but organises independently toward a joint goal of liberal democracy and cooperate, skeptically, on an ad hoc basis.

The relationship of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position.


What good will demanding liberal democracy do?

A functional liberal democracy will ensure a greater political freedom for socialists to mobilise, organise, agitate and so forth. Where dictatorships tend to oppress dissent whenever, liberal democracies tend to start suppressing opposition only when it becomes a threat to the existing order. Hence, the communist movement would be able to organise more freely until it becomes a threat. Of course, chances of being tortured or imprisoned for dissident becoming smaller is generally advantageous to the population.


They are openly advocating ethnic cleansing of Arabs.

[citation needed]

[Devrim]

A functional liberal democracy will ensure a greater political freedom for socialists to mobilise, organise, agitate and so forth. Where dictatorships tend to oppress dissent whenever, liberal democracies tend to start suppressing opposition only when it becomes a threat to the existing order. Hence, the communist movement would be able to organise more freely until it becomes a threat. Of course, chances of being tortured or imprisoned for dissident becoming smaller is generally advantageous to the population.

Yet the largest class movement in the Middle East since the revolutionary wave after WWI was the movement that ended up in the Iranian revolution. It took place it a very non-democratic country. One could also talk of various other massive class movements that have emerged in non-democratic countries. Where are the examples of massive class movements in democratic countries. I can't think of any since the end of the sixties. I am not saying that it is better not to have a liberal democracy. What I am saying is that your argument here than having a liberal democracy would somehow lead to more likelihood of revolution doesn't stand up.

Besides that is the obvious fact that any democracy in Syria after the war is not going to be particularly liberal.

[citation needed]


One day those Arabs who have been brought to the Kurdish areas will have to be expelled,if it continues the same way, there will be war between Kurds and Arabs.

Devrim

[Tim Cornelis]

Yet the largest class movement in the Middle East since the revolutionary wave after WWI was the movement that ended up in the Iranian revolution. It took place it a very non-democratic country. One could also talk of various other massive class movements that have emerged in non-democratic countries. Where are the examples of massive class movements in democratic countries. I can't think of any since the end of the sixties. I am not saying that it is better not to have a liberal democracy. What I am saying is that your argument here than having a liberal democracy would somehow lead to more likelihood of revolution doesn't stand up.

You can't necessarily compare those two. Mass movements have emerged in non-democratic countries, of course, that's undeniable. However, we cannot know whether they would have been more successful if they had the freedom to operate. I imagine they would.

I'm not saying at all that liberal democracy enhances the likelihood of revolution, it does enhance the likelihood of not being persecuted for being socialist and so allows the socialist movement to grow more than it could if it were repressed. Of course, liberal democracies repress anti-establishment movements but not on the same scale as a dictatorship and not immediately. I don't imagine any communist movement will grow sufficiently to overthrow capitalism within a decade, two, or even five decades after liberal democracy has been established. I don't think revolution is within the realm of possibility any time soon regardless of the existence of a liberal democracy or not.

I also don't think people ought to wait until communism until their plight can be alleviated.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You can't necessarily compare those two. Mass movements have emerged in non-democratic countries, of course, that's undeniable. However, we cannot know whether they would have been more successful if they had the freedom to operate. I imagine they would.

I'm not saying at all that liberal democracy enhances the likelihood of revolution, it does enhance the likelihood of not being persecuted for being socialist and so allows the socialist movement to grow more than it could if it were repressed. Of course, liberal democracies repress anti-establishment movements but not on the same scale as a dictatorship and not immediately. I don't imagine any communist movement will grow sufficiently to overthrow capitalism within a decade, two, or even five decades after liberal democracy has been established. I don't think revolution is within the realm of possibility any time soon regardless of the existence of a liberal democracy or not.

I also don't think people ought to wait until communism until their plight can be alleviated.

You don't need to be afraid to say it - a functioning liberal democracy tends to have less likelihood of descending into internal chaos and civil war than a strong-man dictatorship.

The problem is that what we are comparing - the liberal democracies of the west that operate relatively peacefully, and the oft-dictatorships of developing countries that often do not - are apples and oranges. The social conditions that have led to the development of liberal democracy in developed nations were borne out of said countries' economic and political dominance over a number of centuries, which has made concessions (in the form of some level of bourgeois democracy) more palatable for the bourgeoisie.

You are correct in identifying that a developed liberal democracy is an environment which is more suitable for the development of a mass socialist movement, but unfortunately it's not really a theory that can just be parachuted in to a place like Syria, where the social conditions, cultural considerations, history and level of economic development mean that a functioning liberal democracy, as Devrim has said, would probably not end up being that democratic if it were instituted tomorrow. Rather, it is something that will need to happen organically - decades of economic development will probably lead to liberal democracy, not mere political will.

[Tim Cornelis]

You don't need to be afraid to say it - a functioning liberal democracy tends to have less likelihood of descending into internal chaos and civil war than a strong-man dictatorship.

The problem is that what we are comparing - the liberal democracies of the west that operate relatively peacefully, and the oft-dictatorships of developing countries that often do not - are apples and oranges. The social conditions that have led to the development of liberal democracy in developed nations were borne out of said countries' economic and political dominance over a number of centuries, which has made concessions (in the form of some level of bourgeois democracy) more palatable for the bourgeoisie.

You are correct in identifying that a developed liberal democracy is an environment which is more suitable for the development of a mass socialist movement, but unfortunately it's not really a theory that can just be parachuted in to a place like Syria, where the social conditions, cultural considerations, history and level of economic development mean that a functioning liberal democracy, as Devrim has said, would probably not end up being that democratic if it were instituted tomorrow. Rather, it is something that will need to happen organically - decades of economic development will probably lead to liberal democracy, not mere political will.

Actually, no. I was thinking of Tunisia and Syria (bourgeois dictatorships) and Brazil and South Africa (bourgeois democracies). Each of these represses workers' movements and trade unions and socialist activity, the difference being that repression in bourgeois democracies is more relaxed and allows for this repression to be challenged more openly, whereas in bourgeois dictatorships the state-controlled media ignores 'incidents'. Despite repression by all these states, the workers and socialist movements are more free and less repressed (though still repressed) in liberal democracies like that of South Africa and Brazil than their counterparts in Syria and Tunisia (under Ben Ali), despite similar social conditions.

Hence calling for a liberal democracy to be established in Tunisia and Syria in place of dictatorships enhances the chances of the relaxation of the repressive functions of bourgeois class society, until, of course, the communist movement (or some other movement for that matter) becomes a threat to the established order. There are definite gains to be had in liberal democracy, compared to bourgeois dictatorships.

For these reasons (and more) I support the developments in Tunisia, with its new constitution which allows for civil liberties including independent trade unions and political parties, free speech, and a narrow equality for women.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Actually, no. I was thinking of Tunisia and Syria (bourgeois dictatorships) and Brazil and South Africa (bourgeois democracies). Each of these represses workers' movements and trade unions and socialist activity, the difference being that repression in bourgeois democracies is more relaxed and allows for this repression to be challenged more openly, whereas in bourgeois dictatorships the state-controlled media ignores 'incidents'. Despite repression by all these states, the workers and socialist movements are more free and less repressed (though still repressed) in liberal democracies like that of South Africa and Brazil than their counterparts in Syria and Tunisia (under Ben Ali), despite similar social conditions.

Hence calling for a liberal democracy to be established in Tunisia and Syria in place of dictatorships enhances the chances of the relaxation of the repressive functions of bourgeois class society, until, of course, the communist movement (or some other movement for that matter) becomes a threat to the established order. There are definite gains to be had in liberal democracy, compared to bourgeois dictatorships.

For these reasons (and more) I support the developments in Tunisia, with its new constitution which allows for civil liberties including independent trade unions and political parties, free speech, and a narrow equality for women.

I understood what you were saying, but you haven't really addressed my point - that you cannot just transplant the social conditions that exist even in places like Brazil and S. Africa into Tunisia and Syria, and without replicating such social conditions, you cannot just move towards liberal democracy.

I find it interesting that you label SA a bourgeois democracy. I'd say it's a de facto one-party state, and certainly would be anomalous amongst liberal democracies in a variety of ways - elections, propaganda, repression of workers' movements/trade unions.

[Leftsolidarity]

This stuff doesn't happen under Assad. http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/WOR-syrian-girl-stoned-to-death-for-using-facebook-account-4521918-NOR.html

Warning: Graphic picture in link

Folks can say the Syrian state and the rebels are no different but I'd say those actually personally affected by it would think differently.

[tachosomoza]

This stuff doesn't happen under Assad. http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/WOR-syrian-girl-stoned-to-death-for-using-facebook-account-4521918-NOR.html

Warning: Graphic picture in link

Folks can say the Syrian state and the rebels are no different but I'd say those actually personally affected by it would think differently.

Nah, under Assad you have the pleasure of being fired upon during protests and being discriminated against because you're not Alawite. Or being arbitrarily chucked into prison or choking on your own bloody vomit because you've been hit by a gas attack.

What part of "both sides fucking suck for the Syrian proletariat" do you have trouble understanding?

[RedCornFlakes]

I will admit, Arab leaders like Bashar Al-Assad are not saints, but what about the Islamist extremists? I might get banned for saying this but they are way fucking worse than the Secular Arab nationalists.

[Tim Cornelis]

I understood what you were saying, but you haven't really addressed my point - that you cannot just transplant the social conditions that exist even in places like Brazil and S. Africa into Tunisia and Syria, and without replicating such social conditions, you cannot just move towards liberal democracy.

That's just empty phrases.

What social conditions in Tunisia and Syria are absent and disable liberal democracy which exists in such a diverse variety of states such as Brazil, Norway, South Africa, India, the Philippines, Mongolia, and Ghana that enable liberal democracy there. The precondition for a bourgeois democracy is the existence of a capitalist class whom exist independent of tribal and feudal ties, which applies to Syria and Tunisia (but not Afghanistan).


I find it interesting that you label SA a bourgeois democracy. I'd say it's a de facto one-party state, and certainly would be anomalous amongst liberal democracies in a variety of ways - elections, propaganda, repression of workers' movements/trade unions.

South Africa is a one-party dominant system, but not a one-party state.

[Leftsolidarity]

Nah, under Assad you have the pleasure of being fired upon during protests and being discriminated against because you're not Alawite. Or being arbitrarily chucked into prison or choking on your own bloody vomit because you've been hit by a gas attack.

What part of "both sides fucking suck for the Syrian proletariat" do you have trouble understanding?

You still cling to the idea that the state committed gas attacks? I perfectly understand that you think that but I think it's completely absurd to say that it doesn't matter. Both sides might support a capitalist system but one side is defending self-determination, Palestine, Syrian civilians, education, healthcare, and a secular state. The other side is fully backed by the CIA, has no real structure for forming a state, committed gas attacks on Syrians, aren't even from Syria, and stone women for using Facebook.

Whether you can turn your back and think that "not choosing a side" is correct (or even truly possible) is your business. The workers in Syria, though, don't get to turn their backs and ignore it. They have to deal with the real world implications of an imperialist puppet government set up by religious extremists.

[tachosomoza]

You still cling to the idea that the state committed gas attacks? I perfectly understand that you think that but I think it's completely absurd to say that it doesn't matter. Both sides might support a capitalist system but one side is defending self-determination, Palestine, Syrian civilians, education, healthcare, and a secular state. The other side is fully backed by the CIA, has no real structure for forming a state, committed gas attacks on Syrians, aren't even from Syria, and stone women for using Facebook.

Whether you can turn your back and think that "not choosing a side" is correct (or even truly possible) is your business. The workers in Syria, though, don't get to turn their backs and ignore it. They have to deal with the real world implications of an imperialist puppet government set up by religious extremists.

How is Assad defending Syrian civilians by killing them? It's already been shown in this thread that Assad is more than likely responsible for the gas? The Syrian nation can be self-determined without living under the iron heel of a corrupt dictator backed by Russian and Chinese interests.

[Sasha]

Also lol at "defending palestines";


First of all, the Assad family is no friend of Palestine. Before Hafez even became president of Syria, he was a commander of the Syrian Air Force. In 1966, when Salah Jadid took over leadership in Syria in a military coup, he was appointed a Defense Minister, effectively becoming the country’s second in command. In 1970, in the wake of Black September, Syria sided with the Palestinians, sending in armored divisions into Jordan. This marks the first occasion of Assad betraying the Palestinians. As commander of the Air Force, he refused to provide the air cover necessary for the Syrian aid to reach the Palestinians. Because of this, the Syrian forces were re-routed and the Palestinians suffered the consequences of losing. Assad used this particular defeat to discredit Jadid and take over via military coup.

That particular instant is not the first occasion and is certainly not the last. In 1976, at the height of the Lebanese Civil War, the Syrian army aided the Phalangist militia in besieging the Palestinian Tel Al-Zaatar refugee camp in Lebanon. After the Syrians and their Lebanese allies shelled the camp, 3000 Palestinians died. The Syrian army was instrumental in the siege of Palestinian refugee camps by the Amal movement, which left several thousand Palestinians dead. The Syrian role in the Lebanese Civil War would lead to many more Palestinian deaths. It should be telling of the nature of the Assad Regime; psychopathic killers with no friends.

Not to mention, Syria has been a perfect “enemy” to Israel for decades. Since 1973, the Syrian army has fired an illustrious zero bullets into Israel. Even with their territory occupied, they remained quiet even when Israeli planes went as far as flying over Assad’s palace in 2006. This illusion that the Syrian regime is the only regime fighting Israel is simply that, an illusion. There is no question that Assad is not by any means a friend of the Palestinian people.

Source: http://beyondcompromise.com/2013/04/28/on-the-issue-of-palestinian-support-for-the-assad-regime/

[Devrim]

Nah, under Assad you have the pleasure of being fired upon during protests and being discriminated against because you're not Alawite.

The Syrian state does not have a record of discriminating against all people who are not Alawites. Indeed seeing that Alawites only make up about 11% of the population of Syria, it would have meant a tiny minority discriminating against the overwhelming majority.

What actually happened was that the ruling group around the al-Assad family, many of who come from Alawite backgrounds played down the whole thing and tried to present Alawites as normal Sunni Muslims. Alongside this they also drew support from other minority groups, who would have made up up to 30% of the population by playing on fears of Sunni-Arab hegemony.

There has never though been discrimination in Syria against non-Alawites*

Devrim

*There has of course been discrimination against non-Alawites, particularly the Kurds, but on the basis of them being Kurds, not of them not being Alawites.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Tim Cornelis;2721726]That's just empty phrases.

What social conditions in Tunisia and Syria are absent and disable liberal democracy which exists in such a diverse variety of states such as Brazil, Norway, South Africa, India, the Philippines, Mongolia, and Ghana that enable liberal democracy there. The precondition for a bourgeois democracy is the existence of a capitalist class whom exist independent of tribal and feudal ties, which applies to Syria and Tunisia (but not Afghanistan).

You're half right, but still you're not scratching at the surface. What conditions in fact lay the groundwork for the existence of a capitalist class independent of tribal and feudal ties? After all, the world over was once dominated by the feudal system and split according to tribes.

If you endeavour to answer this question, you'll surely come back to the idea that, generally, there is a positive correlation - and, i'd argue, positive causality - between level of economic development and the development of bourgeois liberal democracy as opposed to less 'democratic' outcomes. Of course, to say that the only cause of the development of liberal democracy is economic development would be hugely reductionist on my part, so i'm not claiming that, and i'm not expert enough on countries as diverse as Mongolia and the Phillipines to claim expertise over their political history, but in general, you can say that some countries - and I would include Tunisia and probably Syria here - are not economically mature enough to be able to develop a stable, liberal democracy. An attempt to invoke that now, inorganically, would probably fail because of the division of Syrian society along tribal lines meaning that liberal democracy would not enforce the political and economic stability the exploiting class needs to maintain its hegemony over the Syrian economy.

[tachosomoza]

Indeed seeing that Alawites only make up about 11% of the population of Syria, it would have meant a tiny minority discriminating against the overwhelming majority.


Blacks in South Africa and the US south were and are an overwhelming majority in terms of population. Yet, they still found themselves at the whim of a tiny, wealthy white ruling caste.

[Devrim]

Blacks in South Africa and the US south were and are an overwhelming majority in terms of population. Yet, they still found themselves at the whim of a tiny, wealthy white ruling caste.

But that doesn't mean that non-Alawites were discriminated against in Syria.

Devrim

[Devrim]

You can't necessarily compare those two. Mass movements have emerged in non-democratic countries, of course, that's undeniable. However, we cannot know whether they would have been more successful if they had the freedom to operate. I imagine they would.

No, we are not crystal ball gazers and we can't know the answer to this question. Your imagining that they would though is not just dealing in counter-factuals, but is just completely abstract thought. These situations didn't exist and couldn't exist.

It has been pointed out to you already that it is not just about what political system you adopt. Both Turkey, and Holland are parliamentary democracies. One of them is a parliamentary democracy where military coups have cast the deciding vote on many occasions, where death squads operate, and brutal violence against demonstrations is a regular occurrence. One isn't. Have you wondered why?


Actually, no. I was thinking of Tunisia and Syria (bourgeois dictatorships) and Brazil and South Africa (bourgeois democracies). Each of these represses workers' movements and trade unions and socialist activity, the difference being that repression in bourgeois democracies is more relaxed and allows for this repression to be challenged more openly, whereas in bourgeois dictatorships the state-controlled media ignores 'incidents'. Despite repression by all these states, the workers and socialist movements are more free and less repressed (though still repressed) in liberal democracies like that of South Africa and Brazil than their counterparts in Syria and Tunisia (under Ben Ali), despite similar social conditions.

Do you think that the conditions in Syria and Tunisia are the same. I think they are very different. One of them is a pretty homogenous society, where about 98% of the population belongs to one ethnic religious group. One is a country fractured by ethnic sectarian tensions where many of the neighbouring states are actively stoking these tensions. If you want to look at how bourgeois democracy would probably turn out in Syria I'd advise you to take a look at Iraq.


I also don't think people ought to wait until communism until their plight can be alleviated.

I am not going to make arguments about communism and revolution because you have made it quite clear that you don't really think it is possible. I don't think that installing a liberal democracy in Syria would do much for the plight of people today. It would not be a liberal democracy similar to the Dutch model. It would be one that ran on ethnic cleansing and death squads. That is why I don't think that communists should support this.

Devrim

[Ember Catching]

And how does that translate to the majority of workers having no faith in liberal democracy? I also don't see how rising cynicism of the electorate is a problem.
I'll concede that it does not translate into a majority, but certainly a significant minority of workers having lost faith. That said, demanding parliamentary democracy now, in the twenty-first century no less, feels like a complete abstraction of communist practice from the historical experiences of the proletariat with such a system.


Cognitive dissonance is a feeling, not a position, by the way. But no, it's not contradictory (or "cognitive dissonance"), nor have you provided an argument for this. Its class independence is that it does not enter into temporal or permanent political coalitions with other groups, but organises independently toward a joint goal of liberal democracy and cooperate, skeptically, on an ad hoc basis.

The relationship of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position.
And who constitute "the party which they aim to overthrow"? The very next paragraph makes an unmistakable allusion to the Junkern and all the other feudal aristocrats of the day:


"They [the democratic petty-bourgeoisie] therefore demand [...] the introduction of bourgeois property relationships on land through the complete abolition of feudalism. In order to achieve all this they require a democratic form of government, either constitutional or republican, which would give them and their peasant allies the majority; they also require a democratic system of local government to give them direct control over municipal property and over a series of political offices at present in the hands of the bureaucrats."

— March 1850 Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

Like every other strategy ever formulated by Marx, Engels, and their contemporaries, this one is mired in a historical context which cannot be overlooked — in this case, the capitalist revolution in Germany: even if you have reason to believe the capitalist revolution in Syria is not entirely complete, there is no justification for collaboration with the democratic petty-bourgeoisie today, as, given the undeniable supremacy of capitalist production in Syria, the task of uprooting any remaining pre-capitalist property relations will necessarily fall to the future proletarian dictatorship.


I do not defend liberal democracy for liberal democracy's sake. Participation in it and electoral alliances is [class collaboration], which is not what I advocate. [...] A functional liberal democracy will ensure a greater political freedom for socialists to mobilise, organise, agitate and so forth. Where dictatorships tend to oppress dissent whenever, liberal democracies tend to start suppressing opposition only when it becomes a threat to the existing order. Hence, the communist movement would be able to organise more freely until it becomes a threat. Of course, chances of being tortured or imprisoned for dissidents becoming smaller is generally advantageous to the population.
If you oppose the classes whose social bases rest ultimately on private ownership of the means of production, then why obscure the fundamental content of your demands — total freedom of expression, assembly, movement and association for all organizations and campaigns expressing the proletarian movement — with an implicit veneer of class pluralism? If your demands are to be delivered by an "independent working class organisation", however hypothetical, why do you not frame them as explicitly communist demands? Even if liberalization of the political sphere has historically been tied up with bourgeois democracy, why would an "independent working class organisation" make overtures to the latter when the aforedescribed gains to be made by the proletariat — in addition to the enforcement of a proletarian privilege to bear arms — constitute the only political gains which will optimize the conditions for a quantitative and qualitative amplification of the proletarian movement, and indeed when parliamentary democracy — which you yourself oppose on the grounds that participation in it constitutes class collaboration — is nothing but a chimera for international communism?

In any case, as it stands, with no proletarian alternative on Syrian ground, the assumption of power by the faction promising the most liberal reforms might possibly represent a condition more fertile than not for the future birth of the proletarian movement in the country, but — and this is primarily directed towards others rather than towards you — this in no way translates to a doctrine of active political or military support from any communist party for such an entirely reactionary faction, which could only represent a deviation of the party's activity from the proletarian historical mission, necessarily corresponding to a degree of misapplication of revolutionary energies and thus a general forestalling of the revival of the the revolutionary struggle for proletarian dictatorship.