Defend Raqqa – Drive U.S./NATO Imperialists Out of Syria and Iraq!

[Konikow]

New at the Internationalist Group website:

Imperialist Offensive Threatens Slaughter
Defend Raqqa – Drive U.S./NATO Imperialists Out of Syria and Iraq!

A new stage has opened in the fighting in Syria and Iraq with the launching of offensives against the Islamic State (I.S.) by U.S. imperialism and its allies. On May 24 the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a military front dominated by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), announced the beginning of a drive on the de facto capital of the I.S. in Raqqa. They are participating in a military operation under direct U.S. command. Already U.S. commandos have been sighted carrying out operational activities at the front. Moreover, three days before the offensive was announced, the head of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, flew secretly to the area for an on-site inspection of preparations. Dropping leaflets calling on the population to flee the city, the imperialists are preparing a slaughter. Amid the all-sided communalist/sectarian civil war raging in Syria, internationalist communists (Trotskyists) call to defend Raqqa against the U.S.-led attack and the Kurdish and Arab forces serving as ground troops for the imperialists. In Iraq, the Shiite sectarian regime has launched an attack on the I.S. stronghold of Falluja, while U.S. and Kurdish forces threaten Mosul. We call to drive the imperialists out of the region and to defeat them by international workers action. ... (31 May 2016)

[lanadelarosa]

"kurdish forces threaten mosul" ...what?? I can't believe I just read this article with mine own two eyes.

[Exterminatus]

Holy shit are these Sparts? And to think some here still deny that they are pro-ISIS. Fuck them.

[TheIrrationalist]

fuck you, this is the worst fucking shit.

what about this: http://redflag.org.au/node/5293 , trotskyist rag saying al-qaeda controlled aleppo is "21st century paris commune"?

[Exterminatus]

To think that i used to be sympathetic to Trotskyites when i first learned about communism. How can we build any coherent struggle when this scum of scum tarnish the name of Marxism and Communism. Fuck this actually makes me mad. These remnants of the old left are among our biggest enemies today. They must be destroyed.

[Heretek]

How easy it is to blame all the Sparts and all the trotskyists when there are no more on this site to defend them. The last time they tried to explain the position on Kurds, Isis, and anti-imperialism, they were all banned. By this logic all socialists should be shot because national socialists exist.

[Exterminatus]

How easy it is to blame all the Sparts and all the trotskyists when there are no more on this site to defend them.

If they support this shit, then it's good that they've been banned.


The last time they tried to explain the position on Kurds, Isis, and anti-imperialism, they were all banned. By this logic all socialists should be shot because national socialists exist.

I would think that we have to uphold certain standards, like not supporting arch reactionary religious fundamentalists

[LionofTepelenë]

First off, fuck you Sparts for taking a badass name away and turning it into a reactionary term.

Second off, defending ISIL, which has not broken uncountable international laws. Be a little self-aware, you support an organization that partakes in slavery, beheadings, mass murder of entire ethnic groups, and many more crimes that have led to the destabilization of an entire region. Let's also not forget who's supporting this organization as well. Turkey has maintained supply lines into ISIL territory this whole war, and funding has been given to ISIL by many princes from the gulf states. ISIL not only is a reactionary feudalist organization, but it is being supplied by various imperialist states.

[Freeloader]

You have touched on something important which relates to the OP's article. In it they state that they essentially support ISIS in their attack against imperialist forces and those guided by imperialism(by this they seem to mean US and Russia mainly), and say but we don't support isis, and call for the defense of occupied ISIS territories (although to be fair they are trying to see it from a humanitarian standpoint of the civilians in these cities).
What they fail to see is that ISIS is as much a force of imperial interests as those they criticism (SDF et al.).
In the article there solution is "permanent revolution" ...and for there organization to lead the proletarian struggle. This for me is the worst, whilst the importance of independent working class action and ideas are needed, they don't link it to the concrete situation on the ground that of a bloody civil war being torn apart by competing imperial interests. "permanent revolution" in the abstract is a joke of a demand to make in the situation.

[Konikow]

Finally the revolutionary left has come to its senses and recognized what reasonable progressive people have understood for nearly a century: war and imperialism are bad, generally, but U.S. imperialist wars are not waged for the usual dirty, capitalistic interests that Marx, Lenin and Trotsky warned us all about. Karl Liebknecht said that the "main enemy is at home" but that was then, this is now. If you look at America's wars over the past century, they have all been fought for good and noble, one might even say selfless causes, against extremely evil enemies. And who could be more evil than ISIS? My god, they are WORSE THAN HITLER, just like the last tyrant that American Democracy heroically waged war on.

Anyway, thank God that most of the Revolutionary Left has got Obama's message and is finally coming to its senses. This is a Good War. Too bad that some extreme Trotskyists like the "Internationalist Group" insist on besmirching everyone else's respectability.

[Heretek]

First, I'm no Spart. But to completely discard a tendency with no real evidence of their motives is reactionary in the extreme. Their point was that if you directly opposed Isis you supported imperialism, and if you directly opposed the west you support reaction. So you cannot take a side. If people bothered to read their, especially xhar xhar's, posts, they'd know that. But I'm going to stop this before I end up banned by our honest old board administration.


Finally the revolutionary left has come to its senses and recognized what reasonable progressive people have understood for nearly a century: war and imperialism are bad, generally, but U.S. imperialist wars are not waged for the usual dirty, capitalistic interests that Marx, Lenin and Trotsky warned us all about. Karl Liebknecht said that the "main enemy is at home" but that was then, this is now. If you look at America's wars over the past century, they have all been fought for good and noble, one might even say selfless causes, against extremely evil enemies. And who could be more evil than ISIS? My god, they are WORSE THAN HITLER, just like the last tyrant that American Democracy heroically waged war on.

Anyway, thank God that most of the Revolutionary Left has got Obama's message and is finally coming to its senses. This is a Good War. Too bad that some extreme Trotskyists like the "Internationalist Group" insist on besmirching everyone else's respectability.

I sincerely hope your joking, or this is the most disgusting post I've read in months

[lanadelarosa]

How can anyone seriously write that ypg/j and kurdish forces are imperialist allies, tho, in all honesty. It's mind-bogglingly absurd and reductive and fucking harmful.

[Konikow]

How can anyone seriously write that ypg/j and kurdish forces are imperialist allies, tho, in all honesty. It's mind-bogglingly absurd and reductive and fucking harmful.

Just keep thinking happy thoughts! Happy thoughts!

[Heretek]

How can anyone seriously write that ypg/j and kurdish forces are imperialist allies, tho, in all honesty. It's mind-bogglingly absurd and reductive and fucking harmful.

Easy, they exam the material conditions. How can a force that openly works with imperialist death squads (special forces and air strikes) be anything other than an ally? They use
US and allies forces to pursue their own agenda of nationalism, namely the founding of a Kurdish state.

Other reasons they aren't the saviors of the world can be found here
https://libcom.org/library/rojava-reality-rhetoric-gilles-dauv%C3%A9-tl

[lanadelarosa]

Linking to a libcom article, lmfao.

[oneday]

How easy it is to blame all the Sparts and all the trotskyists when there are no more on this site to defend them. The last time they tried to explain the position on Kurds, Isis, and anti-imperialism, they were all banned. By this logic all socialists should be shot because national socialists exist.

I guess we could read the full article at least, though not really sure how much it's helping. http://www.internationalist.org/defendraqqadriveoutimperialists1605.html

[Exterminatus]

First, I'm no Spart. But to completely discard a tendency with no real evidence of their motives is reactionary in the extreme. Their point was that if you directly opposed Isis you supported imperialism, and if you directly opposed the west you support reaction. So you cannot take a side. If people bothered to read their, especially xhar xhar's, posts, they'd know that. But I'm going to stop this before I end up banned by our honest old board administration.

How is that reactionary? Reactionary is supporting these bloodsuckers from ISIS and other Islamists.

"Defend Raqqa" they say. "Free Aleppo = Paris Commune" they say. Holy shit i can't believe my own eyes. I propose ban on sight for these idiots.

Let us remember the wise words of Lenin, words that his most obnoxious "followers" have obviously forgotten:


Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism"

[TheIrrationalist]

konikow, you are deluded. you clearly have zero understanding of the situation of iraq or syria. this war against daesh is not an american imperialists war. the u.s. has indeed supported both the kurds in syria and the Iraqi government, so has russia. iran has also provided support for iraq, and there are numerous iran affiliated groups on the ground fighting daesh. so who is the imperialist 'master' here? actually daesh has been helping u.s. interest in syria with their fight against the syrian government, alongside with the "moderate" rebels, i.e. al-qaeda. after all how different is saudi, turkish and qatari supported al-qaeda from daesh anyway? the daesh is not an anti-imperialist front; it is an anti-iraqi, anti-syrian, anti-kurdish front. pro-feudalism is not anti-capitalism.

also i would like to point out the "shi'ite sectarianism" you are talking about is a myth. daesh is sectarian, wahhabism is sectarian, but sectarianism isn't a component of the larger islamic thought. don't belive what your cia funded rags wants you to belive. it is much more about iran-saudi arabia power relations, than something inherent in the various muslim communities and viewpoints. keep in mind: saudi interests=u.s. interests.

[Konikow]

Keep thinking happy thoughts! The enemies of Obama are very, very evil! This is a good war! You are not an imperialist bootlicker, you are a Revolutionary Leftist! The main enemy is whoever the U.S. Special Forces are fighting!

[TheIrrationalist]

you are worse than a liberal. you can't even make a intelligent response. next thing you say russians are supporting syria for u.s. interests, because of course the fight against salafism is pro-u.s.!

happy thoughts indeed.

[Konikow]

You are right! It's not a slaughter of civilians by imperialists and their running dogs, it's a "fight against salafism"! A just and Holy war if there ever was one. God bless Obama and Murray Bookchin and God protect the Green Berets!

[TheIrrationalist]

it is a fight against salafism when the main opposition groups are infact salafist: the al-qaeda in syria and daesh.

ps i like trolls.

[Konikow]

it is a fight against salafism when the main opposition groups are infact salafist: the al-qaeda in syria and daesh.

Exactly! Just like the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda!

You probably didn't support that war because Revolutionary Leftists support Democrats, not Republicans. But the Revolutionary Left should just get over that. Politics ends at the water's edge, after all. God bless America and her just and holy wars against evil people!

[TheIrrationalist]

afghanistan where u.s. armed and supported the salafist "freedom fighters"? no, syria is nothing like afghanistan as syria still has a functioning secular government. there is no large scale invasion by any imperialist camp in syria.

you do realise the syrian salafists, you seem to be so fond of, are also supported by the u.s. and its allies?

[Konikow]

Yes, the Kurdish nationalist running dogs of imperialism are different from the Northern Alliance-warlord running dogs of imperialism. The difference is back then, a Republican was president of the U.S. Now a Democrat is president. Revolutionary Leftists understand that this makes all the difference, and support U.S. imperialism when it is necessary to do so. If only these sectarian idiots of the Internationalist Group would get with the program!

[Heretek]

Linking to a libcom article, lmfao.

Lol, a response with no point and no articles of your own.

Here's some more I know you won't read:
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201304/7373/internationalism-only-response-kurdish-issue
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201202/4676/internationalism-only-solution-kurdish-question
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2014-10-30/in-rojava-people%E2%80%99s-war-is-not-class-war

I'll dig up more later when I don't have to work

[TheIrrationalist]

i'm starting to think posadists are the saner group of the weird trotskists.

[lanadelarosa]

Lol, a response with no point and no articles of your own.

I responded to this but it either got deleted or didn't go through and I don't feel like typing up everything I typed before but what I essentially said was that I, as an Actual Kurd, am willing to have a conversation about this stuff without having you guys refer to us as imperialist allies, or "running dogs" as OP so eloquently wrote. It's just rude as hell, first of all, and also super ignorant. You guys have no issue defending Palestine, but have a problem with Kurds, who have been going through the same but worse, from all angles, and for hundreds of years. Obviously if people who have lived under colonization and oppression for as long as Kurds have will be desperate enough to, yes, even use American forces to "further their agenda". Which by the way, you guys really need to choose your words wisely because it comes off as really insensitive and offensive.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, the Kurdish nationalist running dogs of imperialism are different from the Northern Alliance-warlord running dogs of imperialism. The difference is back then, a Republican was president of the U.S. Now a Democrat is president. Revolutionary Leftists understand that this makes all the difference, and support U.S. imperialism when it is necessary to do so. If only these sectarian idiots of the Internationalist Group would get with the program!

You're an especially gross human being.

[TheIrrationalist]

Here's some more I know you won't read:
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201304/7373/internationalism-only-response-kurdish-issue
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201202/4676/internationalism-only-solution-kurdish-question
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2014-10-30/in-rojava-people%E2%80%99s-war-is-not-class-war

national liberation is not antithesis to internationalism. this smearing of actual operating groups coming from some western org with like 100 members is not helping, it just makes them look ridiculous.

[Konikow]

national liberation

What a beautiful word!

If only the Kurdish people were being "liberated" by the military alliance of Kurdish nationalists and U.S. imperialists!

Yet another reason to support this just and holy war, like most of the Revolutionary Left does!

Unfortunately, it will end in the betrayal and continued national oppression of the Kurds.

But, by then, the Revolutionary Left will have forgotten about all of this and moved on to another holy imperialist war for goodness, peace, justice, freedom, etc.

[Heretek]

I responded to this but it either got deleted or didn't go through and I don't feel like typing up everything I typed before but what I essentially said was that I, as an Actual Kurd, am willing to have a conversation about this stuff without having you guys refer to us as imperialist allies, or "running dogs" as OP so eloquently wrote. It's just rude as hell, first of all, and also super ignorant. You guys have no issue defending Palestine, but have a problem with Kurds, who have been going through the same but worse, from all angles, and for hundreds of years. Obviously if people who have lived under colonization and oppression for as long as Kurds have will be desperate enough to, yes, even use American forces to "further their agenda". Which by the way, you guys really need to choose your words wisely because it comes off as really insensitive and offensive.

- - - Updated - - -



You're an especially gross human being.

I don't think you've been on this site long enough to understand insensitive and offensive. The bias is strong.

However, you overgeneralize. "You guys?" I'm not one of "those guys" who supports Palestinian national liberation if that's what you mean. I'd be inconsistent if I made an exception for Kurdistan. I belong to groupings that reject national liberation as a revolutionary tool, instead as one for the national bourgeoisie of the dissenting group. Looking at the fall of the USSR, national liberation has only lead to flocks of countries fleeing to western imperialism over eastern. Rather, I support the proletariat over a nationalist puppet. Are there proles who genuinely believe they are fighting for socialism? Yes, I don't doubt that. But there were plenty who thought the same during Russia's wars, when in reality they were being used by the USSR's national interests over that of proles.

[lanadelarosa]

This would have been easier if ancoms would just come out and admit they're racist already -_-

[Heretek]

This would have been easier if ancoms would just come out and admit they're racist already -_-

It'd be easier for this to make sense if I was an anarcho-com. Or a racsist. Unfortunately calling out the 'my race is best, you say anything else your racist' as racist doesn't make me either. That's the domain of priveldged whites thinking civil and gender rights oppress them

[lanadelarosa]

Lol where did I say my race is best, and obviously I never said I support everything Kurds have done, but to write them off as imperialist allies is reductive and all you're doing is muddying a situation you probably have very little understanding of? This conversation is weird and your beliefs on Kurdish and Palestinian national liberation is weird and comes off as racist imo.

[TheIrrationalist]

Unfortunately, it will end in the betrayal and continued national oppression of the Kurds.

But, by then, the Revolutionary Left will have forgotten about all of this and moved on to another holy imperialist war for goodness, peace, justice, freedom, etc.

the prophet has spoken! just like trotsky himself his followers seem to disseminate the same prophetic knowledge. your 'anti-imperialists' wahhabi head cutters are the ones bent on exterminating kurds. thankfully the kurdish people aren't stupid enough to fall for your or your ilk's reactionary shite.

[Exterminatus]

Exactly! Just like the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda!

You probably didn't support that war because Revolutionary Leftists support Democrats, not Republicans. But the Revolutionary Left should just get over that. Politics ends at the water's edge, after all. God bless America and her just and holy wars against evil people!

Do you not fucking understand that we do not oppose liberalism from the same position as reactionaries do. And we never will. Get the fuck out of here with your reactionary Trotskyite cult. Shame on you in the name of the Middle Eastern masses who are deprived of the basic decency, of basic means through which to articulate their misery due to these bloodsuckers you're lending support to. Just get lost.

"Defend Raqqa". they say. These "revolutionary communists". Holy fucking shit. Admins, moderators, ban this user. How else can we keep our face clean if this garbage floats around the site?

[Heretek]

Lol where did I say my race is best, and obviously I never said I support everything Kurds have done, but to write them off as imperialist allies is reductive and all you're doing is muddying a situation you probably have very little understanding of? This conversation is weird and your beliefs on Kurdish and Palestinian national liberation is weird and comes off as racist imo.

Then you probably shouldn't argue against a tendency you have very little understanding of, if actually living through circumstances is what qualifies people now. If its weird to you, imagine how I feel reading through how supporting the establishment of another regime of capital could possibly help us.

I don't understand how this is racist. I'm not specifically against *that* national liberation, I'm against all calls of socialism benefitting from national liberation. I literally called out the whites (Russians, unless for some reason they aren't white enough), but yes, I'm against any and all, whether its black, white, Arab, Asian, whatever (coming from a mixed race individual of French, English, Chinese, Philipino, Russian, and others, descent, not that that entitles anyone to determine their expertise or what is right or wrong). Further dividing the proletariat along ethnic and national lines, which capital has already done marvelously with its concepts of nationalism and racial stereotypes and superiority, leads to even more instances with the proletariat struggling against itself, rather than capital.

[John Nada]

SDF isn't launching an offensive on Raqqa. That was possibly a deception for the Manbij Offensive, which may eventually connect Afrin and Kobani. I swear to god, if one of the Spart Fronts of Judea says "Defend Dabiq from the PKK Communist Atheists!" I might just buy that paper for the lolz:laugh::laugh:(or not)

However, the SAA is launching an offensive towards Raqqa: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-raqqa-idUSKCN0YQ0B8 Which begs the question if Syrian state[which I'm not a fan of but still less bad than salafi-jihadists("moderate" and otherwise)] is being imperialist taking back territory generally recognized as it's own from an even more reactionary state backed by factions of the bourgeoisie from US proxies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey?:confused:

[Bea Arthur]

I just cannot believe what I am reading in this thread!! Some people are defending the cut-throat Islamic patriarchs, who behead women for daring to be humans and prevent them from so much as receiving an education or even driving a car!!

On the other side are the brave "humanitarians" who claim to be standing up for the Kurdish right to self-determination. Yes, self-determination, but for what exactly? For the rights of a nation. There is a reason that patriotism and patriarchy have the same root word, pater, meaning father. Both are *inherently sexist* constructs that have no place on a forum for leftists!! Anybody who espouses nationalism deserves to be reprimanded in the strongest possible terms, and brought into the 21st century where women and men are at least SUPPOSED to be equals!


Admins, moderators, ban this user. How else can we keep our face clean if this garbage floats around the site?

Almost all the sexists have been banned, but there are still a few hangers on like you and this Krakatoa guy who is posing as a strong woman. I say let them all hang!!

[lanadelarosa]

On the other side are the brave "humanitarians" who claim to be standing up for the Kurdish right to self-determination. Yes, self-determination, but for what exactly? For the rights of a nation. There is a reason that patriotism and patriarchy have the same root word, pater, meaning father.

Unreal.

[John Nada]

Then you probably shouldn't argue against a tendency you have very little understanding of, if actually living through circumstances is what qualifies people now. If its weird to you, imagine how I feel reading through how supporting the establishment of another regime of capital could possibly help us.Why do you keep bringing up how bad nationalism is every time Kurds come up? The KCK affiliated orgs do not want a nation-state. http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=182 They want to democratize society for Turks, Arabs, Persians and Kurds, in spite of Kurds facing extreme discrimination. I don't see how what a few "left"comms and dogmato-trots say, mostly in the 1st-world, is more trustworthy than what the YPG/J and PKK say(not that there's no criticism).
On the other side are the brave "humanitarians" who claim to be standing up for the Kurdish right to self-determination. Yes, self-determination, but for what exactly? For the rights of a nation. There is a reason that patriotism and patriarchy have the same root word, pater, meaning father. Both are *inherently sexist* constructs that have no place on a forum for leftists!! Anybody who espouses nationalism deserves to be reprimanded in the strongest possible terms, and brought into the 21st century where women and men are at least SUPPOSED to be equals!Seriously? You're the last person I would've expected anglocentrism and "color-blindness" towards colonized peoples from, particularly in light of Canada's treatment of indigenous nations. What's next, #AllLivesMatter and #NotAllMen?

[TheIrrationalist]

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Syria-Army-Enters-Raqqa-Province-Surrounds-Islamic-State-Group-20160604-0004.html

russian backed u.s. imperialist running dogs are closing in to smother the permanent wahhabi revolution! will this be the end to the workers' feudal-internationalist revolution?

[DOOM]

it is a fight against salafism when the main opposition groups are infact salafist: the al-qaeda in syria and daesh.

ps i like trolls.
To be fair, the west doesn't care about salafism in general. They only care about it when it's at their doorstep.

[DOOM]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/war-on-is/2016/05/26/green-berets-syria-kurdish-ypg-insignia/84987596/?=%5B%27recahe%27%5D

Just saying


How is that reactionary? Reactionary is supporting these bloodsuckers from ISIS and other Islamists.

"Defend Raqqa" they say. "Free Aleppo = Paris Commune" they say. Holy shit i can't believe my own eyes. I propose ban on sight for these idiots.

Let us remember the wise words of Lenin, words that his most obnoxious "followers" have obviously forgotten:


Lenin meant pre-capitalist social formations like feudalism that are threatened by capitalism / imperialism when he said that we shouldn't support "reactionary classes". He says so right in the previous sentence. ISIS doesn't constitute a class on itself and the Islamic State surely isn't feudalist.

And supporting western imperialism might not be reactionary in the context of fighting radical Islam. But obviously we don't live in a world where the main contradiction lies between religious fundamentalists and western liberal democrats. This ideological war is a struggle within the bourgeoisie and the workers have to pay the blood price for it. The only progressive ie communist position to take is to support the international working class against both ISIS and the West.

[ckaihatsu]

[I]f Syrian state[which I'm not a fan of but still less bad than salafi-jihadists("moderate" and otherwise)] is being imperialist taking back territory generally recognized as it's own from an even more reactionary state backed by factions of the bourgeoisie from US proxies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey?:confused:


The self-defense of a country and its people (Syria) is *not* imperialist, it's *self-defense* -- Morsi in Egypt was more "imperialist" / adventurist when he got elected because he right-away made plans to invade Syria, while Syria itself has *not* behaved the same way, with plans to invade other countries.

[ckaihatsu]

I just cannot believe what I am reading in this thread!! Some people are defending the cut-throat Islamic patriarchs, who behead women for daring to be humans and prevent them from so much as receiving an education or even driving a car!!




On the other side are the brave "humanitarians" who claim to be standing up for the Kurdish right to self-determination. Yes, self-determination, but for what exactly? For the rights of a nation


In *this* situation I'd say that Kurdish nationalism is national-liberation, and would be a relatively progressive thing, especially considering the gender composition of the Kurdish militia and the fact that they've been consistently fighting ISIS.





There is a reason that patriotism and patriarchy have the same root word, pater, meaning father. Both are *inherently sexist* constructs that have no place on a forum for leftists!! Anybody who espouses nationalism deserves to be reprimanded in the strongest possible terms, and brought into the 21st century where women and men are at least SUPPOSED to be equals!



Almost all the sexists have been banned, but there are still a few hangers on like you and this Krakatoa guy who is posing as a strong woman. I say let them all hang!!

[Exterminatus]

Lenin meant pre-capitalist social formations like feudalism that are threatened by capitalism / imperialism when he said that we shouldn't support "reactionary classes". He says so right in the previous sentence. ISIS doesn't constitute a class on itself and the Islamic State surely isn't feudalist.

And supporting western imperialism might not be reactionary in the context of fighting radical Islam. But obviously we don't live in a world where the main contradiction lies between religious fundamentalists and western liberal democrats. This ideological war is a struggle within the bourgeoisie and the workers have to pay the blood price for it. The only progressive ie communist position to take is to support the international working class against both ISIS and the West.

I didn't mean that should to support NATO versus jihadists, they are two faces of the same global capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -



Almost all the sexists have been banned, but there are still a few hangers on like you and this Krakatoa guy who is posing as a strong woman. I say let them all hang!!

How am i a sexist?

What in the fuck are you talking about?

[Heretek]

Why do you keep bringing up how bad nationalism is every time Kurds come up? The KCK affiliated orgs do not want a nation-state. http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=182 They want to democratize society for Turks, Arabs, Persians and Kurds, in spite of Kurds facing extreme discrimination. I don't see how what a few "left"comms and dogmato-trots say, mostly in the 1st-world, is more trustworthy than what the YPG/J and PKK say(not that there's no criticism).Seriously? You're the last person I would've expected anglocentrism and "color-blindness" towards colonized peoples from, particularly in light of Canada's treatment of indigenous nations. What's next, #AllLivesMatter and #NotAllMen?

It only seems like I only bring it up around the Kurds (hence what amounts to accusations of racism, probably in the same vein black nationalists call people critical of their program racist) is because that's all the community here talks about. PKK this, YPG that, Raqqa this, Mosul that, etc etc. I would gladly say the same thing about the Palestinian struggle everyone seems to have forgotten about. Or the civil war in Ukraine and Columbia. Or secessionists in Catalonia, Scotland, and Quebec. Or the obviously very socialist successor states to the Soviet Union. To be entirely fair, anyone can say anything they want if it sounds nice and increases their popularity to what is currently "in." It does not change the fact they had been a Marxist-Leninist party up until 1999, when their leader changed their direction entirely. Which raises questions in and of itself if everyone is willing to abandon their ideology at the drop of a hat how dedicated, or free-thinking, they actually are.

What's with the "" around left? That's the generally accepted designation for groups like the ICC, ICT, and a few others.

And in the last part you literally use Bea Arthur's national background against them, while you stand on your platform of "I'm not racist, you are." A Canadian who doesn't conform to your idea of what Canadians should know and do? Well hell, they must be ignorant, racist, and a reactionary shit.

[lanadelarosa]

I just don't understand why people are conflating patriotism with pride. After having your identity stripped, jailed and even killed for speaking your language, forced to integrate into the societies of your colonizers, not being allowed to celebrate your culture, had bombs dropped on them several times simply for the crime of *being* Kurdish... How is finally being able to be proud of your identity and being able to celebrate your culture and fight for kurdish autonomy and a right to exist as the nation they had stolen from them the same fucking thing as imperialist patriotism? Like I doubt most of you even knew we existed until this Daesh situation happened.

And btw Heretek you obviously racist pos, this isn't a fucking trend or what's "in", this is peoples lives. Kurds have been ignored not only by the left, but worldwide. You're gross, I hope you know.

[lanadelarosa]

It does not change the fact they had been a Marxist-Leninist party up until 1999, when their leader changed their direction entirely. Which raises questions in and of itself if everyone is willing to abandon their ideology at the drop of a hat how dedicated, or free-thinking, they actually are.

Lmao, so this is a competition of who can be the most ideologically pure? You're so far removed from reality, it's unbelievable.

[DOOM]

Lmao, so this is a competition of who can be the most ideologically pure? You're so far removed from reality, it's unbelievable.

What is this, a shitposting contest?
I'm sorry for this stupid ass one liner but is this what revleft has degenerated to? At least the sparts were able to articulate themselves in a way you could counter their shit. This right now is just pathetic name calling and baseless accusing.

[lanadelarosa]

What is this, a shitposting contest?
I'm sorry for this stupid ass one liner but is this what revleft has degenerated to? At least the sparts were able to articulate themselves in a way you could counter their shit. This right now is just pathetic name calling and baseless accusing.

First of all, I don't even know what shitposting is. And second of all, you could have easily addressed anything I wrote above that post but you chose to focus on me calling Heretek out for turning this into a contest of who can be the most ideologically pure. I'm not gonna have a conversation with someone who refuses to understand my.point of view despite me specifically saying that I'd be willing to have this debate if you would just stop calling us imperialist allies and running dogs. How do you not realize how awful that is?

[Konikow]

Being an imperialist running dog or a propagandist for imperialist running dogs used to be a bad thing. But that was 100 years ago. The Revolutionary Left has moved on, and in the Obama era, we have come to recognize that imperialism is not necessarily as good as some other words, but the enemies of imperialism are really bad people who cut off people's heads with swords and shit, instead of using bombs like civilized people do. Also, we have realized that somehow, via the magic of the Internet, bourgeois nationalism (which used to be a bad thing 100 years ago) has become "national liberation," which is a good thing. Now some insane gross ultrasectarian Trotskyists insist that the bourgeoisie is incapable of liberating the oppressed nations, and that their service to the imperialists will end in bloody defeat for the oppressed, but Permanent Revolution was like, a century ago. This is the Obama Era. Things have changed. Get with the program! Shame on the Internationalist Group!

[lanadelarosa]

Bourgeois nationalism isn't the same thing as national liberation. I'm honestly tired of having to defend Kurds at every corner so I get upset easily and apologize for that. However, it's not my job to educate anyone on what Kurds are going through. If you're gonna call yourself a leftist, there's a level of sympathy and empathy that comes with that title. You don't wanna support national liberation? Fine. But at least try and be understanding and empathetic to their cause. It's virtually impossible for them to create anything but a "democratic" nation when the whole world is against them and their only allies are imperialists right now. I'm not saying every move they make is perfect, I'm not saying their tactics are above criticism, but holy shit to write them off simply just allies and running dogs is stripping them completely of their history and struggle.

[Recuperation]

On the first page you said they weren't allies of imperialists, now you claim they have been backed into a corner and can only ally with imperialists. Which is it? From my point of view, enemies do not embed their troops in each others fighting units and they do not coordinate raids and airstrikes together, that is the practice of allies.

[lanadelarosa]

I meant to put allies in quotes, I still don't think they're allies. But you guys have clearly made up your mind about the issue so this conversation is pointless. Must be nice, though, not to be one of the only few people who have no home to call your own. No real understanding of what's its like to be nationless. Your criticisms are easy, your alternatives and solutions are non-existant. Later.

[Konikow]

Revolutionary Leftists should not be so dogmatic, like the Internationalist Group! Revolutionary Leftists should realize that there is an alternative to socialist revolution for achieving nation-state formation ("liberation" is debatable!) for oppressed nations in the epoch of imperialist decay. In fact, it's right next door in the Near East: Israel! See? By allying with imperialists, an aspiring bourgeois class can under some exceptional conditions, carve out a new nation for itself! The dictatorship of the proletariat is very impractical and it can wait!

[Recuperation]

I meant to put allies in quotes, I still don't think they're allies. But you guys have clearly made up your mind about the issue so this conversation is pointless. Must be nice, though, not to be one of the only few people who have no home to call your own. No real understanding of what's its like to be nationless. Your criticisms are easy, your alternatives and solutions are non-existant. Later.

Recently, a woman near my home shot and killed a man who had entered her apartment through a window while she slept. I think she was right to defend herself, but I didn't feel the need to cast her actions as that of a revolutionary communist in order to justify them. Whether Kurds are right to defend themselves from Daesh, Turkey, etc. is a separate issue from the glaring contradiction of a 'liberatarian communist' organization openly cooperating with Imperial powers on the world stage, which is what people are generally attacking when they criticize YPG/J from the left. Communism stands in opposition to nationalism, stating this does not make one a racist or takfiri sympathizer.

[Heretek]

And btw Heretek you obviously racist pos, this isn't a fucking trend or what's "in", this is peoples lives. Kurds have been ignored not only by the left, but worldwide. You're gross, I hope you know.

Ok, let's play. You want to know what people's lives are? The countless dead Palestinian and Israeli proles killed in a pathetic conflict of self determination. The dead proles between imperialist Russia and fascist Ukraine. The brutal oppression of proles in places like the US, France, Germany, the Balkans, and others. All of them are being ignored because the left has decided to focus all of its attention on one specific place rather than worldwide. The attention of everyone, especially the national liberation crowd, has now been focused upon the struggle of the Kurds. But this attention simply follows where the US is currently bombing. The left and the world have ignored the proles in Kurdistan in the past, and will again ignore them when they grow bored and decide they want another conflict to grow invested in. They have done the same to Palestine and the same to other struggles around the world, and they will do so again.

I'd rather not jump on the band wagon of going conflict to conflict and declaring it "THE STRUGGLE THAT WILL DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY!!" and instead focus on actual critiques and strategies to stop a worldwide problem

[Konikow]

Heretek is right! Marxists are not tribunes of the people, mobilizing the power of the working class to smash all forms of oppression created by class society! In fact, oppressor and oppressed are equal! Let's talk about proles and their wages! Now that's oppression that a trade-union-secretary left communist can understand!

[TheIrrationalist]

To be fair, the west doesn't care about salafism in general. They only care about it when it's at their doorstep.

yes, of course they don't. salafism is after all propagated by west's allies in the gulf. i was refering to the people actually fighting there, in syria, kurdistan and iraq.

[TheIrrationalist]

all i hear:
CCnCMHNyny8

[lanadelarosa]

Ok, let's play. You want to know what people's lives are? The countless dead Palestinian and Israeli proles killed in a pathetic conflict of self determination. The dead proles between imperialist Russia and fascist Ukraine. The brutal oppression of proles in places like the US, France, Germany, the Balkans, and others. All of them are being ignored because the left has decided to focus all of its attention on one specific place rather than worldwide. The attention of everyone, especially the national liberation crowd, has now been focused upon the struggle of the Kurds. But this attention simply follows where the US is currently bombing. The left and the world have ignored the proles in Kurdistan in the past, and will again ignore them when they grow bored and decide they want another conflict to grow invested in. They have done the same to Palestine and the same to other struggles around the world, and they will do so again.

I'd rather not jump on the band wagon of going conflict to conflict and declaring it "THE STRUGGLE THAT WILL DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY!!" and instead focus on actual critiques and strategies to stop a worldwide problem

Except this isn't a "bandwagon" for me. This is my culture, my identity, and my struggle too. It's not my fault there are leftists who jump from one thing to another based on what's "trending". I'm just fucking glad we're finally getting some recognition. Where were leftists when hundreds of thousands of kurdish people were buried alive? Where were leftists during the Halabja bombing? During infal? Where were leftists when Kurdish women were being sterilised by the fascist Turkish state? Our oppression has been largely ignored in the left, and maybe you're right, maybe once this Daesh situation blows over people are gonna forget about us again. However, I think there's room to discuss issues in the left that aren't just revolved around proletariat issues.

- - - Updated - - -


Heretek is right! Marxists are not tribunes of the people, mobilizing the power of the working class to smash all forms of oppression created by class society! In fact, oppressor and oppressed are equal! Let's talk about proles and their wages! Now that's oppression that a trade-union-secretary left communist can understand!

Why do you do that? Why do you mock everyone's responses? :/

[Konikow]

Why do you do that? Why do you mock everyone's responses? :/

Isn't this a joke website? Are these people who mix together leftist words to ineptly lawyer their way into the camp of imperialism actually serious? OMG!

[TheIrrationalist]

Isn't this a joke website? Are these people who mix together leftist words to ineptly lawyer their way into the camp of imperialism actually serious? OMG!

in 2016 wahhabism represents anti-imperialism, according to like 3 western trotskyists. you are not marxist or anti-imperialist.

if this site is so repugnant to your reactionary ideals, i would suggest you to just move on. your lack of critical thinking is astounding and your attempts at trolling are boring.

[Heretek]

in 2016 wahhabism represents anti-imperialism, according to like 3 western trotskyists. you are not marxist or anti-imperialist.

if this site is so repugnant to your reactionary ideals, i would suggest you to just move on. your lack of critical thinking is astounding and your attempts at trolling are boring.

First off, fuck this site's mobile version. I try to edit a post and it keeps deleting it.

What exactly is wrong with being a 'westerner?' It's said like an insult, yet about half the world lives there. Was I not privileged to be born east of Germany? Marx himself was German, and wrote most of his works in england. I'm pretty sure not a lot of people exclude him as a communist

[John Nada]

This might be somewhat relevant in a otherwise trashcan worthy thread: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/index.htm#1

"War is a continuation of politics by another means." The fight against imperialism doesn't just mean shooting at imperialist soldiers. The fight for socialism isn't just economic struggles. The fight for socialism and democracy isn't any spontaneous rebellion, either from semi-feudal reactionaries, fascists or rival comprador-bourgeoisie. It must be pared with a social revolution against the neocolonial autocracy maintained by imperialism. When the dual fight for political and economic freedom gets downplayed, you end up with nonsense like viewing rival comprador-capitalists' rebellions or bureaucratic capitalists as "progressive", or that any fight for political freedom under autocracy is "reformists"(it does not help that neoliberals often recuperate democratic rhetoric). If the dialect of this was more recognized, there would be less support for either ostensibly anti-US(but not anti-imperialist) comprador tyrants, or dismissing democratic struggles as hopeless or mere trickery.

In this discussion and others like it, many users seem to be taking past each other. There's fundamental differences in priories and theories on the nature of modern capitalism that conflict, such as the degree economics or politics predominates, relevance of democratic demands in this neocolonial, post-Cold War age, and how to approach this, even if there's largely an agreement on most other things. This ends up either leading to accusation of chauvinism for either opposing or supporting democratic struggles(sometimes real, some imagined).

Those that oppose things like Palestinian or Kurdish liberation likely aren't motivated by chauvinism or class reductionism(hopefully), but think "the best defense is a good offense" so a "decisive victory" for socialism will settle things with no ambiguity, rendering other struggles a moot point. Those that do support them likely view the struggle against colonialism and imperialism as not only just and beneficial overall in its own right, but as another step closer to defeating capitalism too.

[ckaihatsu]

First off, fuck this site's mobile version. I try to edit a post and it keeps deleting it.


Technical note:

The Android device you already own is your next desktop, portable PC

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195684-The-Android-device-you-already-own-is-your-next-desktop-portable-PC





What exactly is wrong with being a 'westerner?' It's said like an insult, yet about half the world lives there. Was I not privileged to be born east of Germany? Marx himself was German, and wrote most of his works in england. I'm pretty sure not a lot of people exclude him as a communist

[ckaihatsu]

I'm seeing this whole post-2011 (Arab Spring) thing as being both a semi-stoppage of the U.S./NATO war juggernaut, now bogged-down in Syria and even having to fight *against* ISIS -- and also as a 'soft-world-war' since geopolitically the issue is Saudi Arabia versus Iran in the Middle East.

From a past thread:





the CIA [...] in opposition to the Pentagon/Russia-sponsored SDF





To me this is far more than just an incidental, interesting footnote -- it's downright *Orwellian* that the U.S. empire backs *both sides* in the conflict


http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195594-FSA-Al-Qaeda-break-cease-fire-in-massive-spring-offensive-in-Aleppo

[TheIrrationalist]

What exactly is wrong with being a 'westerner?' It's said like an insult, yet about half the world lives there. Was I not privileged to be born east of Germany? Marx himself was German, and wrote most of his works in england. I'm pretty sure not a lot of people exclude him as a communist

westerner as in someone living in the "first world". it isn't an identity but rather referring to the distance of the economic situation of the average person experices say in germany for example, compared to someone in africa. or the cultural divide between them. i just don't think we who have it best on a world scale, and whose lifestyle is so far removed from that of other peoples outside the first world, should not be telling how kurds or indians or whom ever should be changing the reality they live in, i.e. revolution, struggle etc. it is used to mark this distance, not to disparage anyone.

[Recuperation]

westerner as in someone living in the "first world". it isn't an identity but rather referring to the distance of the economic situation of the average person experices say in germany for example, compared to someone in africa. or the cultural divide between them. i just don't think we who have it best on a world scale, and whose lifestyle is so far removed from that of other peoples outside the first world, should not be telling how kurds or indians or whom ever should be changing the reality they live in, i.e. revolution, struggle etc. it is used to mark this distance, not to disparage anyone.

Its interesting that you don't feel the need to apply this logic to your own criticism of Daesh. Surely the people of Raqqa, Mosul, etc. are in a better position to determine how their reality should change, IE living under Sunni-interpreted sharia vs the 'secularism' offered by the Iraqi/Syrian state. Of course this is all ridiculous, those of us in the west are just as capable of applying analysis as those outside of it. It seems to me that many of the people in this thread are letting their emotions get the better of them and it is showing.

[lanadelarosa]

Its interesting that you don't feel the need to apply this logic to your own criticism of Daesh. Surely the people of Raqqa, Mosul, etc. are in a better position to determine how their reality should change, IE living under Sunni-interpreted sharia vs the 'secularism' offered by the Iraqi/Syrian state. Of course this is all ridiculous, those of us in the west are just as capable of applying analysis as those outside of it. It seems to me that many of the people in this thread are letting their emotions get the better of them and it is showing.

So I kinda get the feeling this is directed at me? Like god forbid a member of an oppressed group gets emotional when they're constantly having to defend their people, right? Anyways, I already apologized for getting upset so...

I don't think anyone in this thread said Westerners can't apply analysis to issues outside of the west. It's a matter of western leftists speaking FOR and OVER people of other cultures. You can't act like that never happens, and it upsets people of said cultures, rightfully so, because we're already so voiceless.

[TheIrrationalist]

Its interesting that you don't feel the need to apply this logic to your own criticism of Daesh. Surely the people of Raqqa, Mosul, etc. are in a better position to determine how their reality should change, IE living under Sunni-interpreted sharia vs the 'secularism' offered by the Iraqi/Syrian state. Of course this is all ridiculous, those of us in the west are just as capable of applying analysis as those outside of it. It seems to me that many of the people in this thread are letting their emotions get the better of them and it is showing.

i'm a marxist. i don't think 'anything goes'. i'm not a 'cultural relativist'. but i do think the secularism of syrian or iraqi state is objectively preferable to daesh's wahhabi sharia. i don't think majority of people in syria or iraq want daesh, after all large part of daesh's fighters are foreign and basically mercenaries. and if daesh is not too dangerous for the majority of sunnis, it will certainly be especially disastrous to the shi'ites and minorities.

of course westerners can analyse, but what i'm saying is that we, westerners, cannot give the right answers. that must be done by the people actually living there. experiencing and taking part in that struggle. they know and they will know.

[Recuperation]

So I kinda get the feeling this is directed at me? Like god forbid a member of an oppressed group gets emotional when they're constantly having to defend their people, right? Anyways, I already apologized for getting upset so...

I don't think anyone in this thread said Westerners can't apply analysis to issues outside of the west. It's a matter of western leftists speaking FOR and OVER people of other cultures. You can't act like that never happens, and it upsets people of said cultures, rightfully so, because we're already so voiceless.

There are a great many idiots on every side of every issue, I don't plan on making excuses for any of them. Getting emotional is perfectly reasonable for anyone, you as much as the other YPG supporters in the thread. What is not reasonable is allowing it to cloud ones thinking. Criticizing the current SDF program is not the same thing as saying they should lay down their arms and embrace Daesh, nor is it support for further oppression of Kurds or anyone else. This is a communist forum and you are discussing an allegedly communist group among other communists. Communism will necessarily be the focus of any discussion here. If said group's actions betray or are at least seen as a betrayal of the principles of communist thought, then it is only reasonable to expect criticism of that group. You would see the same in discussions of just about any other allegedly communist group which gets discussed here, unfortunately this board has been dead for several months (years) due to internet drama so it might seem like only the SDF is ever discussed.

[Recuperation]

i'm a marxist. i don't think 'anything goes'. i'm not a 'cultural relativist'. but i do think the secularism of syrian or iraqi state is objectively preferable to daesh's wahhabi sharia. i don't think majority of people in syria or iraq want daesh, after all large part of daesh's fighters are foreign and basically mercenaries. and if daesh is not too dangerous for the majority of sunnis, it will certainly be especially disastrous to the shi'ites and minorities.

of course westerners can analyse, but what i'm saying is that we, westerners, cannot give the right answers. that must be done by the people actually living there. experiencing and taking part in that struggle. they know and they will know.

Perhaps it is a language barrier but your post seems like a contradiction. The fact that Daesh has remained in control of their territory without being overthrown by the population would suggest that the people experiencing that struggle have come to their conclusion, and yet you are supporting outside intervention to have that conclusion changed for them. By your own logic they already have the right answer and you do not, so what are we even talking about in this thread?

[lanadelarosa]

Like it's that easy to overthrow a terrorist group when you live in a state of fear and have little to no resources or weapons? They haven't made up their minds at all. Daesh is not reflective of our cultures and doesn't represent our views and beliefs. The majority of middle easterners, believe it or not, are NOT Islamic extremists and do not support a group who is burning people alive, raping women and girls, trafficking women and girls. It was just a couple days ago that they burned over a dozen Yezidi women alive. When you're up against Imperialism, and you're up against Daesh which is funded by fascists and at least has some indirect connection to US Imperialism, what choices do you have? I think I can safely speak for Kurds and our surrounding neighbours that we most definitely do not support Daesh.

I never said Kurds are above criticism, and I think I even mentioned that in my previous posts. Nor did I say they were acting as revolutionary communists. All I was doing was defending Kurds from being reduced to "imperialist running dogs".

[Heretek]

So I kinda get the feeling this is directed at me? Like god forbid a member of an oppressed group gets emotional when they're constantly having to defend their people, right? Anyways, I already apologized for getting upset so...

I don't think anyone in this thread said Westerners can't apply analysis to issues outside of the west. It's a matter of western leftists speaking FOR and OVER people of other cultures. You can't act like that never happens, and it upsets people of said cultures, rightfully so, because we're already so voiceless.

I don't think anyone has been speaking over oppressed cultures, or for them even in this thread. You might, representing the Kurds, and perhaps others on your side that probably aren't exactly Kurdish themselves.

We have criticized the program undergone by groups relating primarily to the PKK, not against or for the Kurds themselves. Anyone can support the PKK, regardless of cultural background, but not everyone that does is Kurdish, nor do all Kurds support it. Even if a prominent Kurd spoke for (or against) the PKK, this cannot be taken at face value or without debate. Rosa Luxembourg, a prominent Polish communist, did not support Polish independence because she believed it would endanger the worker's movement. Conversely, Iosef Stalin supported such an approach (national liberation) as it would aid the worker's movement, in his eyes at least. Both were prominent figures, but they by no means represented the wholesale opinion of their culture. Plenty of Polish communists supported national liberation for Poland's independence, and plenty of Russian communists did not agree with national liberation, and those questions are still deliberated by us today.

It's not even so much as what is best for a particular culture group, but the movement as a whole. For example, national liberation certainly seemed to help the Russians and the Poles, but arguably hindered the communist movement in other locations like Germany and Italy.

[TheIrrationalist]

Perhaps it is a language barrier but your post seems like a contradiction. The fact that Daesh has remained in control of their territory without being overthrown by the population would suggest that the people experiencing that struggle have come to their conclusion, and yet you are supporting outside intervention to have that conclusion changed for them. By your own logic they already have the right answer and you do not, so what are we even talking about in this thread?

daesh has the guns and the muscle, and most importantly they have the capital; they can control large populations. but there are active resistance groups inside daesh controlled areas. resistance doesn't necessarily arise as large popular overthrowing of the oppressor, especially when the oppressor is as vicious as the daesh.

also i was mostly referring to revolutionary struggle. if their answer to bourgeois regime is reaction and return to feudal forms of the daesh i say, as a marxist, that they are wrong. daesh is not a revolutionary organisation, and i don't care who supports or what they think of these reactionary organisations as they are wrong. daesh is not the answer. there are limits inside the marxist framework.

i'm not supporting outside intervention. there are local groups there fighting daesh and the al-qaeda: syrian state, iragi state, sdf and various other groups. but i do oppose u.s. intervention helping the al-qaeda affiliated groups.

[lanadelarosa]

I don't think anyone has been speaking over oppressed cultures, or for them even in this thread. You might, representing the Kurds, and perhaps others on your side that probably aren't exactly Kurdish themselves.

We have criticized the program undergone by groups relating primarily to the PKK, not against or for the Kurds themselves. Anyone can support the PKK, regardless of cultural background, but not everyone that does is Kurdish, nor do all Kurds support it. Even if a prominent Kurd spoke for (or against) the PKK, this cannot be taken at face value or without debate. Rosa Luxembourg, a prominent Polish communist, did not support Polish independence because she believed it would endanger the worker's movement. Conversely, Iosef Stalin supported such an approach (national liberation) as it would aid the worker's movement, in his eyes at least. Both were prominent figures, but they by no means represented the wholesale opinion of their culture. Plenty of Polish communists supported national liberation for Poland's independence, and plenty of Russian communists did not agree with national liberation, and those questions are still deliberated by us today.

It's not even so much as what is best for a particular culture group, but the movement as a whole. For example, national liberation certainly seemed to help the Russians and the Poles, but arguably hindered the communist movement in other locations like Germany and Italy.


I know, I never said anyone in this specific thread was speaking for other people's cultures. The question of why western is used as an insult was posed and all I said was that western leftists sometimes have a habit of speaking for and over others, that's all.

I realize that not every kurd supports pkk. In fact the most vocal (iraqi) kurds support Barzani, who I personally hate because he espouses views of national liberation and kurdish patriotism whilst indirectly working with imperialists and Turkish fascists. I know there are gonna be people with differing ideologies, but what's important meanwhile, imho, is not what's good for the movement as a whole, but what's good for the Kurdish, Iraqi, Syrian, Yezidi, etc people. But that's just my opinion.

[Recuperation]

YPG banned independent fighting units early last year, which means that in areas under their control, they also have all the guns and muscle. So then what conclusions can we draw for the populations that are brought under their control? Are they happy? Are they in a position to push SDF forces out of their territory if they aren't? It doesn't matter, my point is that people are deploying some flimsy analysis in this situation and are instead relying almost entirely on knee-jerk emotional responses or worse, propaganda from their own side, one which is now deeply embedded with imperial interests. It's just the inverse of what the bozo who made this thread is doing with his support for Daesh. But if you all are backing off your earlier assertions that YPG represents some kind of leftist orientation, that's satisfactory for me. You can support nationalists all you want, just don't call it revolutionary.

[lanadelarosa]

that's satisfactory for me.

Nice.

[TheIrrationalist]

It doesn't matter, my point is that people are deploying some flimsy analysis in this situation and are instead relying almost entirely on knee-jerk emotional responses or worse, propaganda from their own side, one which is now deeply embedded with imperial interests. It's just the inverse of what the bozo who made this thread is doing with his support for Daesh. But if you all are backing off your earlier assertions that YPG represents some kind of leftist orientation, that's satisfactory for me. You can support nationalists all you want, just don't call it revolutionary.

ok, what is your propaganda source then?

i was speaking in general terms about revolutionary struggle, but neither do i see ypg and pyd as being reactionary or 'right-wing' either. the choice is basically between the u.s. backed ypg and the al-qaeda, backed by the u.s. and its allies. make what you will out of this.

[John Nada]

Perhaps it is a language barrier but your post seems like a contradiction. The fact that Daesh has remained in control of their territory without being overthrown by the population would suggest that the people experiencing that struggle have come to their conclusion, and yet you are supporting outside intervention to have that conclusion changed for them. By your own logic they already have the right answer and you do not, so what are we even talking about in this thread?What is anyone doing replying to a troll thread anyway?:confused: Oh well, board's slow and I'm bored.

Have you seen or even read about what Daesh does to anyone challenging their rule? They've literally executed hundreds at a time. Besides, the SDF is from the Syrian population with their own conclusion.
We have criticized the program undergone by groups relating primarily to the PKK, not against or for the Kurds themselves. Anyone can support the PKK, regardless of cultural background, but not everyone that does is Kurdish, nor do all Kurds support it. Even if a prominent Kurd spoke for (or against) the PKK, this cannot be taken at face value or without debate. Rosa Luxembourg, a prominent Polish communist, did not support Polish independence because she believed it would endanger the worker's movement. Conversely, Iosef Stalin supported such an approach (national liberation) as it would aid the worker's movement, in his eyes at least. Both were prominent figures, but they by no means represented the wholesale opinion of their culture. Plenty of Polish communists supported national liberation for Poland's independence, and plenty of Russian communists did not agree with national liberation, and those questions are still deliberated by us today.Rosa Luxembourg opposed "right of nations to self-determination" as a universal principle for minimum programs, in the case of Poland calling it "utopian"(not the least because Poland would've had to fight Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary). Frankl,y I don't think it was her best theorizing(ie. Ukrainians don't exist and Poland can't ever be independent). However, she did support national liberation in some instances: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1896/10/10.htm (relevant?:grin: ) And she didn't ignore the national oppression of Poles, such as banning Polish and forced assimilation: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/nationality/index.html Really the SDKPiL's program of autonomy is kind of similar to the program of the KCK-affiliated parties in a way.

Much of the criticism seems to be that the PKK is some "crypto-stalinist-nationalists" making an elaborate political theory, and implementing it when possible, to deceive westerners for some strange reason. Yet the actual nationalists and "Stalinists" criticized the PKK for "selling out" and becoming reformist(not sure if that still stands).

I don't see what's strange about what the PKK claims. That it adopted Marxists-Leninism because it viewed Kurdish liberation as part of the greater anti-colonial movement globally, which was dominated by variants of Marxism-Leninism. That was at the time viewed as the best way to bring democracy and socialism. Part of the theory was liberating Kurdistan would also lead to revolution in Turkey: http://www.bannedthought.net/International/RIM/AWTW/1986-5/ibrahim_kaypakkaya_on_kurdistan.htm But later with the reality of and collapse of "really-existing socialism", other "ex"-colonies still being oppressed under capitalism, and a lot of Kurds living in Turkey and Turks in Kurdistan, a reorientation was needed. So they abandon calls to secede into another nation-state and instead sought to democratize society. I'd like if it was still Marxist and not some sort of post-Marxist, but that sounds reasonable.
It's not even so much as what is best for a particular culture group, but the movement as a whole. For example, national liberation certainly seemed to help the Russians and the Poles, but arguably hindered the communist movement in other locations like Germany and Italy.What national liberation in Germany and Italy? If I remember correctly Marx and Engels supported national liberation in both Germany and Italy because a unified nation-state would've made it easier for revolution than a bunch of feuding statelets. And if the attempted revolutions succeeded it probably would've helped. Unless you mean the WWI or WWII, which isn't national liberation.
YPG banned independent fighting units early last year, which means that in areas under their control, they also have all the guns and muscle. So then what conclusions can we draw for the populations that are brought under their control? Are they happy? Are they in a position to push SDF forces out of their territory if they aren't? It doesn't matter, my point is that people are deploying some flimsy analysis in this situation and are instead relying almost entirely on knee-jerk emotional responses or worse, propaganda from their own side, one which is now deeply embedded with imperial interests. It's just the inverse of what the bozo who made this thread is doing with his support for Daesh. But if you all are backing off your earlier assertions that YPG represents some kind of leftist orientation, that's satisfactory for me. You can support nationalists all you want, just don't call it revolutionary.What's wrong with not surrendering to the state or various Jihadists? There's other rebel or state-controlled areas that are left alone except in self-defense. Why back off that the YPG/J is leftist and compared to semi-feudalism progressive and even revolutionary? I think that's true. I think in semi-feudal, (semi-neo)colonial countries, democratic revolutions are not only possible but progressive and a step closer to socialist revolutions. Rojava may in the long run have positive implications in surrounding countries too.

And "deeply embedded" by being co-belligerent isn't imperialist. The Bolsheviks weren't "deeply embedded" by opposing the same side as the Central Powers, and neither were the anti-fascists(many of whom ended up fight imperialism). Communist in the imperialist nations aren't "deeply embedded" by not physically attacking imperialism. Imperialism is monpoly-capitalism, so "deeply embedded" would be if trans-national corporations started exploiting the workers and peasants.

Though I do worry the Rojava is going to get fucked over. US/NATO/Russia are not there for just reasons nor can they be. They're fucked up in another way and would gladly back something like Daesh if it played ball. US imperialist will not choice Rojava over Turkey(second largest military in the imperialist alliance NATO). This may be damage control(ie blow-back from a hypothetical Socialist Democratic Confederation of the Middle East is lower on the threat scale than a Caliphate of Ummah atm for the imperialists), but I do think something's fishy. Honestly I prefer they just go it alone and that would be better in the long run, but asking people to take more casualties and risk an intervention from Turkey would make this a hard sell.

[lanadelarosa]

Admittedly I did not know OP was a troll til late into the thread, but then again I haven't been on a forum since like 2006. This place is really dead, despite so many people being online/viewing threads. What's up with that?

[John Nada]

Admittedly I did not know OP was a troll til late into the thread, but then again I haven't been on a forum since like 2006. This place is really dead, despite so many people being online/viewing threads. What's up with that? http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195654-So-what-exactly-is-going-on-here TL;DR OP's buddies/original account got purged. Shit-storm ensued. Almost an internet meme.

But yeah, who the hell are all those lurkers?:confused:

[lanadelarosa]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195654-So-what-exactly-is-going-on-here TL;DR OP's buddies/original account got purged. Shit-storm ensued. Almost an internet meme.

But yeah, who the hell are all those lurkers?:confused:

I'm guessing all the people who got banned are lurking? Anyway that was wild. I didn't realize how much people were talking about the Daesh issue, I can see why some people might be annoyed, but wow I still do not get the support for Isis from some of the members.

[TheIrrationalist]

i think this is still the most factual article on the spart-daesh issue:
http://workersspatula.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/spartacist-league-forms-syrian-battalion-in-support-of-isis/

[ckaihatsu]

Though I do worry the Rojava is going to get fucked over. US/NATO/Russia are not there for just reasons nor can they be.


I don't know how you can lump the U.S./NATO *and* Russia together -- Western foreign policy regarding Syria is schizophrenic, while Russia and Iran are decisively Syria's main backers. (The West has had Syria on its 'conquer' checklist but has to play nice with Iran and Russia since it's now a multipolar world.)





They're fucked up in another way and would gladly back something like Daesh if it played ball.


The U.S. *was* supporting the Islamic fundamentalists with weaponry, through the proxy of the FSA / SNC -- that's how ISIS came to be as entrenched as it is today.





US imperialist will not choice Rojava over Turkey(second largest military in the imperialist alliance NATO). This may be damage control(ie blow-back from a hypothetical Socialist Democratic Confederation of the Middle East is lower on the threat scale than a Caliphate of Ummah atm for the imperialists), but I do think something's fishy. Honestly I prefer they just go it alone and that would be better in the long run, but asking people to take more casualties and risk an intervention from Turkey would make this a hard sell.


*I'd* just like to see the U.S. orientation towards Syria *clarified* since it's currently contradictory, in continuing to want regime-change in Syria, while at the same time contributing to the pro-Syria SDF.

[John Nada]

I'm guessing all the people who got banned are lurking? Anyway that was wild. I didn't realize how much people were talking about the Daesh issue, I can see why some people might be annoyed, but wow I still do not get the support for Isis from some of the members.I don't think it was that many who got banned :laugh: Wasn't exactly super-busy before either.

Trotskyists who have there bizarre positions will generally cite these: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/10/sino.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm and another on his position on defending Abyssinia. They'll point out that the KMT was pretty brutal, Brazil was a semi-fascist autocracy and Abyssinia was feudalistic despotism, so anti-imperialism is the priority. Problem is that the KMT(with the Communist ending up fighting both Japanese fascists and the KMT anyway) and Abyssinia were backed by imperialism and Brazil was hypothetical. What they ignore is this:
second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries;

third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.;[In the proofs Lenin inserted a brace opposite points 2 and 3 and wrote “2 and 3 to be united”.—Editor.]Bold mine, which basically describes Daesh. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm
Let us assume that rebellion breaks out tomorrow in the French colony of Algeria under the banner of national independence and that the Italian government, motivated by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send weapons to the rebels. What should the attitude of the Italian workers be in this case? I have purposely taken an example of rebellion against a democratic imperialism with intervention on the side of the rebels from a fascist imperialism. Should the Italian workers prevent the shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any ultra-leftists dare answer this question in the affirmative. Every revolutionist, together with the Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians, would spurn such an answer with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike broke out in fascist Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an exception in favor of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists – not proletarian revolutionists.
In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each time orient itself independently in the internal as well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to the interests of the proletariat. This rule applies just as much to the war period as to the period of peace.

Let us imagine that in the next European war the Belgian proletariat conquers power sooner than the proletariat of France. Undoubtedly Hitler will try to crush the proletarian Belgium. In order to cover up its own flank, the French bourgeois government might find itself compelled to help the Belgian workers’ government with arms. The Belgian Soviets of course reach for these arms with both hands. But actuated by the principle of defeatism, perhaps the French workers ought to block their bourgeoisie from shipping arms to proletarian Belgium? Only direct traitors or out-and-out idiots can reason thus.

The French bourgeoisie could send arms to proletarian Belgium only out of fear of the greatest military danger and only in expectation of later crushing the proletarian revolution with their own weapons. To the French workers, on the contrary, proletarian Belgium is the greatest support in the struggle against their own bourgeoisie. The outcome of the struggle would be decided, in the final analysis, by the relationship of forces, into which correct policies enter as a very important factor. The revolutionary party’s first task is to utilize the contradiction between two imperialist countries, France and Germany, in order to save proletarian Belgium.Bold mine. They need to Learn to Think (https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm). Of course, there's some who've twisted even this into supporting("militarily" or otherwise) into supporting Daesh or other "moderate, democratic-loving" salafi-jihadists.:confused: Occasionally you'll even get Marxist-Leninists using Stalin's comment on Afghanistan defeating Britain to reach similar conclusions: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm (unsurprisingly not the ones from Afghanistan) but that seems less common(but not unheard of) for some reason:confused:
i think this is still the most factual article on the spart-daesh issue: http://workersspatula.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/spartacist-league-forms-syrian-battalion-in-support-of-isis/ Yeah, that shit was fucking hilarious:lol:. Though why do apologist for pedophiles seem to oppose Rojava: [Trigger Warning:disgusting apologia]? https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gilles-dauve-alice-in-monsterland Most opponents probably don't(hopefully), but it is strange:glare:.
I don't know how you can lump the U.S./NATO *and* Russia together -- Western foreign policy regarding Syria is schizophrenic, while Russia and Iran are decisively Syria's main backers. (The West has had Syria on its 'conquer' checklist but has to play nice with Iran and Russia since it's now a multipolar world.)I mean if the contradictions between Rojava and the Syrian state, or between Iran and the PJAK, become (more) antagonistic in the future. There is the saying,"Kurds have no friends but the mountains."
The U.S. *was* supporting the Islamic fundamentalists with weaponry, through the proxy of the FSA / SNC -- that's how ISIS came to be as entrenched as it is today.I know. A lot of the ammunition used by Daesh and FSA was coming from the US and its allies. And for a while the US was really bending over backwards to avoid having to work with the YPG/J and its allies. Which makes me think it's current support for the SDF is more pragmatic and Machiavellian as the "least bad option".
*I'd* just like to see the U.S. orientation towards Syria *clarified* since it's currently contradictory, in continuing to want regime-change in Syria, while at the same time contributing to the pro-Syria SDF.You do have several regional powers with contradictory goals too. GCC would like a Saudi Arabian-style government and is not adverse to many groups not unlike Daesh. Israel views anyone but Assad as better for its interests, even jihadists. US wants to pry Iran a little closer to its side, and both the US and Iran(and Hezbollah) support the Iraqi government. And Turkey too supports both jihadists and even Daesh against both Assad and Rojava, which it fears the latter may inspire Kurds and even Turkish leftists in Turkey/Northern Kurdistan.

[lanadelarosa]

i think this is still the most factual article on the spart-daesh issue:
http://workersspatula.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/spartacist-league-forms-syrian-battalion-in-support-of-isis/

This was so fucking funny.

Anyways the whole supporting Daesh to get rid of US Imperialism/occupation will never make any sense no matter how much Trotskyites try and twist it or make excuses, especially considering how interconnected western Imperialism is with daesh and with corrupt middle eastern regimes. I mean, even if daesh had no ties to imperialism I highly doubt the people of the middle east would support that kind of terrorism. And that article was revolting, that's the same dude who wrote the libcom article, no? :/

[ckaihatsu]

*I'd* just like to see the U.S. orientation towards Syria *clarified* since it's currently contradictory, in continuing to want regime-change in Syria, while at the same time contributing to the pro-Syria SDF.


http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/18/syri-j18.html


State Department “dissent” memo backs escalation of regime-change war in Syria

By Bill Van Auken
18 June 2016

The leaking of a so-called “dissent channel cable”—a classified memo signed by over 50 mid-level State Department officials calling for the Obama administration to re-direct its military intervention in Syria to a war against the government of President Bashar al-Assad—has ratcheted up tensions between Washington and Moscow.

The memo, issued under a State Department procedure allowing its functionaries to express disagreement with standing policy, called for “targeted military strikes” against the Assad government, employing a “judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed US-led diplomatic process.”

US air strikes, according to this thesis, would force the Assad government to halt military activities against CIA-backed “rebels” and force it to submit to a negotiating process directed at replacing it with a puppet regime of Washington’s choosing.

The memo couches the call for a major escalation of US military aggression in the phony “human rights” rhetoric previously employed in relation to both Syria and the US-NATO war for regime-change in Libya in 2011.

“The moral rationale for taking steps to end the deaths and suffering in Syria, after five years of brutal war is evident and unquestionable,” the memo states. “The status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic and terrorism-related challenges.”

“We are not advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia,” the document states, adding, however, that the signatories “recognize that the risk of further deterioration in US-Russian relations is significant” and that US military escalation “may yield a number of second-order effects.”

The duplicity and hypocrisy of this thesis is breathtaking. The “five years of brutal war” were imposed upon Syria by a massive regime-change operation carried out by Washington and its regional allies in utter disregard for the lives and well-being of the Syrian people.

US imperialism sought to achieve its aims by acting together with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to fund and arm Islamist militias, the most influential of them linked to Al Qaeda, as proxy forces, with tens of thousands of so-called foreign fighters funneled in to serve as troops in a war to topple Assad.

The failure of this operation, due in part to the intervention of the Russian military on the side of the Syrian government and, in no small measure, to the revulsion felt by broad masses of Syrians toward the reactionary Islamist gunmen backed by Washington, is what underlies the demand for a US military escalation.

From the outset, the US intervention in Syria was directed at advancing far broader strategic aims, principally preparing for confrontations with both Iran and Russia by depriving them of their principal ally in the Arab world. Thus, despite the protest that they are not “advocating for a slippery slope”—whoever has?—the signatories to the document are clearly prepared to provoke a military confrontation with Moscow.

The publication of reports on the leaked memo came just one day after US Secretary of State John Kerry, on a visit to Norway, stepped up threats to Moscow over Syria. “Russia needs to understand that our patience is not infinite, in fact it is very limited with whether or not Assad is going to be held accountable,” he said.

Significantly, while the New York Times acknowledged that it had been handed the internal memo by a State Department official, department spokesman John Kirby Friday insisted that there was no interest in uncovering who was responsible for the leak or holding them accountable. For his part, Kerry described the memo as “an important statement.”

The memo rekindles a simmering dispute within the administration that has divided the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House since August 2013, when President Barack Obama backed off from a threat to launch air strikes against the Assad government over fabricated charges that it was responsible for a chemical weapons attack. Instead, the White House accepted a Russian-brokered deal for Damascus to destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles, angering those who saw this as a missed opportunity to escalate the US war for regime-change.

Kerry, like his predecessor as secretary of state, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, disagreed with Obama’s decision and reportedly continued to press for stepped-up US military action in Syria directed against the government.

In a further indication of mounting US-Russian tensions over Syria, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter Friday accused the Russian military of carrying out air strikes in the south of the country that allegedly hit CIA-trained “rebels.” He denounced Moscow, charging that its forces were not directed at fighting ISIS but had “mostly supported Assad and fueled the civil war.”

Carter added that a hotline established to guard against unintended conflicts between US and Russian warplanes flying over Syria “wasn't professionally used” by the Russians. Apparently, US officials had tried to use the phone to get the Russians to stop bombing the CIA-backed “rebels.”

The Russian government responded to the charge by stating that it was difficult to distinguish between the US-backed “rebels” and fighters of the Al Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, because the two fought side by side.

This same essential point was candidly acknowledged by Anthony Cordesman, a long-time Pentagon adviser from the Center for International and Strategic Studies, in a report last week: “The United States still has yet to show that it can create any meaningful US-supported Arab rebel force,” he wrote. “So far, its support of such rebels has largely had the effect of helping to arm the Al Nusra Front (an al Qaeda affiliate)...”

While promoting its intervention in Iraq and Syria as a struggle against terrorism, the principal purpose of US threats against Russia is to prevent it from enabling Syrian government forces to deal a decisive defeat against the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda, which, together with ISIS, constitutes the main fighting forces in the war for regime-change.

The State Department memo and mounting US threats were denounced by Russian officials. Alexei Pushkov, the head of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of the Russian parliament, described the memo as “kind of an ultimatum signaling the acknowledgement that the US is unable to achieve its goal by diplomatic and political means and so there is a need to switch to military methods.” He added, “This is a signal to us, a warning to Assad and the international community that there are people in the US who call to shift the fire from the Islamic State to the government of Assad.”

Meanwhile, in Washington, President Obama held talks in the Oval Office with Saudi Arabia’s deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. Afterwards, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, traveling with the prince, told the media that “There should be a more robust intervention,” in Syria and reiterated Saudi support for what has been referred to in US ruling circles as “Plan B,” including the provision of surface-to-air missiles to the Islamist militias and the use of Western air power to create a no-fly zone.

While the Obama administration insisted that there are no plans to shift US military operations in Syria to directly target the Assad government, the rumblings in the State Department may well be a warning of what is to come after the presidential election, no matter whether the Democrats or Republicans emerge as the victors. Traditionally, US governments have put off major new military operations until after national elections in order to prevent war and militarism from becoming political issues placed before the American people.

However, both parties’ presumptive presidential candidates, Clinton and Trump, have called for an escalation of US military operations in Syria, including the establishment of a no-fly zone, a measure that would directly challenge Russia’s air power in Syria.

A US escalation of the Syrian bloodbath and the danger of a direct military confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers are likely to emerge as ever more direct threats after November.

Copyright © 1998-2016 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved