Brutal Dictators or Defenders of National Interest?

[FidelMaestro]

I believe that the way the West-in particular the US, has persecuted and labelled the leaders and ex-leaders of the Middle East and Africa as brutal dictators is unfair and hypocritical.
I am not knowledgeable on all of them, but I am adamant that the late Muammar Gaddafi, President Assad and President Mugabe are all decent and honest people (which is more than we can say for some US politicians). I believe that a form of autocratic socialism was in place in these nations, and their refusal to kowtow to the US has sealed their condemnation, as it were. I believe that these men were protecting their nation's interest, before this Arab Spring, nobody spared a thought for those "poor people suffering under the cruel regime of their oppressive dictator." This is because they were actually relatively contented. It was Iran's refusal to continue giving America cheap oil that started the Arab Spring, not their desire to be liberated and to have a weak form of democracy thrust upon them.
Once these leaders have been removed, a National Transitional Council, of the sort replaces them as you are probably aware. For those of you who are well read on their history will see the uncanny resemblance to the Russian Provisional Government and the Weimar Government in pre War Germany. In these times of extreme instability, one of the two form of radicalism will prevail. Communism or Fascism. We saw this happen in Russia and Germany, and now I predict that it will happen in the Arab world. We can only hope for their sake that it is Communism.
Is this just me being cynical or is their any truth in my 'prophecies'? Who else agrees that there should be no NATO, American or any other troops present in Syria and other Arab countries? Were the leaders of these countries really bad people? I personally believe that the American government has gone too far this time- do you?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Are you a communist? Why do you give a shit about the 'national interest'?

Seriously. What the fuck? I know it's your first post, but Socialism is international, and can only be so. There's no point defending asshole national dictators just because they're the enemy of our enemy.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Why would America have only gone too far this time? And if these people were not discontented under those leaders before the Arab spring, what was it that caused them to all spontaneously feel that way within a matter of weeks? What is "autocratic socialism"?

[Igor]

You're right - there should be no American troops in any Arab countries or well, anywhere. American interventions and imperialism, or any other kind of imperialism of course, is to be opposed everywhere. But this isn't because there's really something worthy of preserving about the local regime, because even though some of them use socialist appeal to justify their existence, their act in a manner that one would expect from a bourgeoisie regime in a capitalist country. It's important to realize that not every single political movement and leader that claims to be a socialist has anything at all to do with socialism - because socialist ideas are actually popular among people who've had a shit deal in this system (meaning most of the global population) and appeal to that means more votes and popular support.

Oppose US imperialism, oppose local capitalism. It's not any nicer or better than exported one, it's ran on exactly the same motivations. Fuck Qaddafi and his ilk as much as Obama, Romney or whoever.

[Sasha]

Oh god...

[Ocean Seal]

Brutal Dictators or Defenders of National Interest?
Most likely both. National interest is the interest of the national bourgeoisie so check that one off, and guys like Saddam and Qaddafi have had their brutal moments, and they aren't bourgeois democratic, so there you have it. The answer to your question.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why would America have only gone too far this time? And if these people were not discontented under those leaders before the Arab spring, what was it that caused them to all spontaneously feel that way within a matter of weeks? What is "autocratic socialism"?

Yeah, the whole commentary on the Arab Spring confused me, too. Obviously significant amounts of people in eastern Libya and Syria were unhappy with their governments, otherwise the protests never would've happened in the first place.

[FidelMaestro]

And if these people were not discontented under those leaders before the Arab spring, what was it that caused them to all spontaneously feel that way within a matter of weeks? What is "autocratic socialism"?

I believe that the American government (don't ask me how) has somehow managed to stir some sort of racial tensions. If you read extensively on the subject, then you will know that a lot of the violence is caused by Sunni, Shi'ite and Sufi militias. In reply to your other question, autocratic socialism is a form of totalitarian leadership where one sole person is responsible for sharing the wealth amongst the people

[Pravda]

Imperialists or defenders of national interests?
Comes to the same as this, because "national interests" dont exist, they are always interests of national bourgeoisie which tries to project their interests as interests of the whole population.

Of course, that doesnt mean that USA fight for "democracy","freedom" etc. is not a cheap lie to cover their imperialist interests.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

autocratic socialism is a form of totalitarian leadership where one sole person is responsible for sharing the wealth amongst the people

Let's row back and focus on this bit. Do you really think that, in reality, this is possible?

As a disclaimer, i'm an open enemy of the likes of Stalin, but I mean consider this: in a country where the working class was a small minority at the time of revolution, and support for the Bolsheviks not exactly infinite, do you really think that, barely 10 years after the revolution, one man was able to hold all the levers? How, in practice, would this work?

No, in reality, history is simplified into the great man theory to fit a certain narrative - for capitalist propaganda, Stalin is used as the human embodiment of the 'evils of communism' or whatever. In actual fact, Stalin was not the most important actor in the USSR - it was the bureaucratic caste that supported him, that supported the continued power of the Bolsheviks on behalf of the working class (or, 'on behalf', but i'm trying not to attract sectarian attacks here) and that support Marxism-Leninism, Comintern and the USSR in its form then, who were responsible for what you term 'autocratic socialism'.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Autocratic socialism," as you describe it, does not have a socialist mode of production. It is an autocratic welfare state, social capitalism, but not socialism.

I am adamant that the late Muammar Gaddafi, President Assad and President Mugabe are all decent and honest people

How do you figure? If Obama were to behave as Mugabe, I bet you'd revile him.

I found this group on revleft, Solidarity with Zimbabwe, who describe the group as:

We support Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's recapturing of land by and for the African people that was stolen from them by the European Colonialists.

We may have some criticisms of Mugabe and ZANU-PF.

We oppose the Movement for "democratic" change and condemn them as working in the interests of Imperialism.

Chimurenga!

And I can't help but wondering, are they serious, or is it like a mock group like Marxism-Leninism-Jonesism?

Are they completely mad? Are we now supporting any vicious dictator because of anti-colonial rhetoric?

Zimbabwe has an unemployment rate of more than 80 percent (more than 90% a few years ago), before 2010 hyperinflation was destroying the economy, and why?

Because Zimbabwe participated in the Congo war to reap financial benefits, i.e. imperialism!

there are signs that Harare is pouring money into the war with the hope of reaping longer-term financial rewards from its relationship with DR Congo.

Diamonds are mined in rebel-held territory (image caption)

Some observers have suggested that the main beneficiaries will be a group of people associated with the army and the government rather than the national economy.

In September, Zimbabwe announced joint business ventures with DR Congo including diamond and gold dealing, to add to the war chest of both countries.

"Instead of our army in the DRC burdening the treasury for more resources, which are not available, it embarks on viable projects for the sake of generating the necessary revenue," Defence Minister Moven Mahachi said.

The official Herald newspaper said two companies based in Zimbabwe and DR Congo would be granted licences to buy and sell diamonds and gold, and would set up offices manned by military officers.

In October, Zimbabwe's state-run Agricultural and Rural Development Authority was awarded more than 500,000 hectares of farming land in DR Congo.

The chairman of the authority, Dr Joseph Made, said the land would be used for maize, soya beans and livestock, and would create "enormous business opportunities for Zimbabwean companies."

John Makumbe, a political scientist at the University of Zimbabwe and fierce critic of the government said: " Zimbabwe seems intent on raiding the DRC and making it an economic colony."

Mr Makumbe, who heads the local branch of the anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International, believes that any economic gains are unlikely to trickle down to the Zimbabwean people.

"It won't be Zimbabwe as a nation that benefits. Instead a number of individuals in the political elite will enrich themselves."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/611898.stm

Zimbabwe has a higher income inequality than the United States and Qatar.

Mugabe is also a rampant homophobe who used the magnificent logic: "pigs and dogs are not homosexual, so why should humans". Yes, we should all take the example of dogs and pigs.

Yet these lunatics support him because he is somehow "anti-imperialist". It seems the most vocal anti-imperialist have no clue of what it entails.

We support Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's recapturing of land by and for the African people that was stolen from them by the European Colonialists.

Roughly 80% of the land owned by whites was bought after Mugabe took office, with government approved certificates. While obviously private property is not justified, the claim that the white farmers all stole the land they owned does not stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, no ethnicity has a claim to property based on their ethnicity, which is fundamentally racist. Land redistribution should be done on the basis of class, not race.

What exactly does Mugabe do that warrants our approval?

It is truly beyond me how some who claim to be revolutionary socialists and anti-imperialists are in bed with bourgeois dictators and imperialists like Gadaffi (participated in Liberian civil war for natural resources) and Mugabe.

Lastly, the movement for democratic change is more "socialist" than Mugabe has ever been. It is a member of the "socialist" international of social-democratic parties. Contrary to Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangiray supports gay rights.

On October 25, 2011, Zimbabwe's Justice Minister and ZANU-PF member Patrick Chinamasa rejected calls by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai to enshrine gay rights in a new constitution. Homosexual acts are currently illegal in Zimbabwe, as in most African countries where many people view gay rights as un-Christian and un-African.

(wikipedia)

Zimbabwe was the most advanced country in Africa, even more so than South Africa, with a modern military, good economy, but this started to fade a decade after Mugabe's rule and completely collapsed around 2000 when Mugabe lost it. Zimbabwe could have been so much more, but Mugabe fucked it up, and he fucked it up bad.

While Morgan Tsvangirai is certainly no revolutionary socialist, he is better than Mugabe in any conceivable way.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh no Tim, we're not allowed to attack third-world homophobes for being homophobes cos, you know, we're just being liberal euro-centrists if we do that...!

Having said that, I don't really see how it is helpful to say whether one person is better than another. That's a value judgement and has little to do with political philosophy, which is what we are generally concerned with. You are right that Mugabe is an odious little piece of shit, though.

[hashem]

autocratic socialism is a form of totalitarian leadership where one sole person is responsible for sharing the wealth amongst the people

"Whoever wants to reach socialism by any other path than that of political democracy, will inevitably arrive at conclusions that are absurd and reactionary both in the economic and the political sense."

Lenin - Two tactics of social democracy in the democratic revolution


"... in the same way as there can be no victorious socialism that does not practise full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy."

Lenin - The socialist revolution and the right of nations to self-determination

[Yuppie Grinder]

National interests can go to hell. You should be concerned strictly with the interests of your class.

[Os Cangaceiros]

w/ regards to Mugabe, wasn't he responsible for sending DPRK-trained death squads into the countryside and massacring some ethnic minority group in Zimbabwe?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I believe that the way the West-in particular the US, has persecuted and labelled the leaders and ex-leaders of the Middle East and Africa as brutal dictators is unfair and hypocritical.
I am not knowledgeable on all of them, but I am adamant that the late Muammar Gaddafi, President Assad and President Mugabe are all decent and honest people (which is more than we can say for some US politicians).

Who else agrees that there should be no NATO, American or any other troops present in Syria and other Arab countries? Were the leaders of these countries really bad people? I personally believe that the American government has gone too far this time- do you?

I agree with you about the hypocrisy of the US (and any other imperialist power for that matter) when it comes to denouncing certain statesmen as dictators when it suits them while supporting other dictators financially and politically and all that jazz. I also agree with you that NATO intervention in any country should be opposed.
This does not mean we should divide the political agents of capital around the world into good and bad ones. It matters not if they are good and honest or corrupt; whether they allign with US- imperialism or Russian imperialism, the EU or whatever. These are just frictions within the global capitalist class. If "national interest" is something we should concern ourselves with (whatever that is) I wonder if we can not sympathise with the travesties the US is responsible for in Latin America and the Middle East, since the imperialist power was just staying true to it´s national interests. I´ve no doubt many US statesmen have also been honest and good people.

[Raúl Duke]

before this Arab Spring, nobody spared a thought for those "poor people suffering under the cruel regime of their oppressive dictator." This is because they were actually relatively contented.

How do you know that they were content for certain?
Assuming that the US was somehow involved, wouldn't it required at least some measure of discontent for any kind of popular uprising to appear?

Once these leaders have been removed, a National Transitional Council, of the sort replaces them as you are probably aware. For those of you who are well read on their history will see the uncanny resemblance to the Russian Provisional Government and the Weimar Government in pre War Germany.

Nope, simplistic historical analysis...

What about Italy and Spain?

If you wanna talk about fascism, look at the Golden Dawn.

Who else agrees that there should be no NATO, American or any other troops present in Syria and other Arab countries?

No argument there. No one wants NATO/et.al invading for the purpose of economic imperialism.

but I am adamant that the late Muammar Gaddafi, President Assad and President Mugabe are all decent and honest people

[Sankara1983]

Superficial ideological disagreements should not camouflage the fact that Western capitalists and Third World despots and theocrats play on the same team, so to speak.

[Blake's Baby]

Superficial ideological disagreements should not camouflage the fact that Western capitalists and Third World despots and theocrats play on the same team, so to speak.

Well, this, precisely.

As Ocean Seal, pravda 4 and others have said - there's no opposition between 'brutal dictators' and 'defenders of national interest'. They are one and the same thing. All politicians try to defend their 'national interest' ie the interests of national cpaital. Obama does it, Mugabe does it, Putin does it, Chavez does it, Netanyahu (or whichever other Muppet is ruling Israel currently, I forget) does it, Assad does it, Ahmedinajad does it, Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein and Mubarak and that guy in Tunisia did it too. They might not all agree with each other but then again that's because often their nations are competing with each other. As workers we have no interest in supporting one national capitalism against another, we need to destroy all of them.