discipline posted:yeah they'd probably be even more in favor of assad over the rebels
Well this is crystal ball shit, the polling we actually have says a) Syrians were opposed to Assad early b) Arabs outside of Syria have been consistently opposed to Assad from 2011-2013 and c) Arabs are also opposed to US/Gulf aid to rebels. That's more or less identical to my position so I gotta roll my eyes at this "you're an imperialist lackey" crap.
Lessons posted:discipline posted:
yeah they'd probably be even more in favor of assad over the rebels
Well this is crystal ball shit, the polling we actually have says a) Syrians were opposed to Assad early b) Arabs outside of Syria have been consistently opposed to Assad from 2011-2013 and c) Arabs are also opposed to US/Gulf aid to rebels. That's more or less identical to my position so I gotta roll my eyes at this "you're an imperialist lackey" crap.
you're not an imperialist lackey because your 'position' on geopolitical events has no bearing on American policy, much the same as polling in Syria.
Lessons posted:there's been no reliable polling in Syria since the start of the conflict this + the data from other Arab countries is the best we have. Also regional opinion should matter generally imo.
"best we have" but still useless. and as a general statement "regional opinion should matter" is i guess pretty agreeable but matter for what? for deciding on an opinion about syria, why, because they're arabs too?
if most of "the arab world" would like assad gone but also opposes US & other foreign involvement in the syrian war, what third position are you deriving from this and assigning to them and why?
at this point it seems like your disagreement amounts to whether we should say we support assad or oppose the opposition
Backus posted:Lessons posted:there's been no reliable polling in Syria since the start of the conflict this + the data from other Arab countries is the best we have. Also regional opinion should matter generally imo.
"best we have" but still useless. and as a general statement "regional opinion should matter" is i guess pretty agreeable but matter for what? for deciding on an opinion about syria, why, because they're arabs too?
if most of "the arab world" would like assad gone but also opposes US & other foreign involvement in the syrian war, what third position are you deriving from this and assigning to them and why?
at this point it seems like your disagreement amounts to whether we should say we support assad or oppose the opposition
Other Arabs' opinions should matter because they're all targets of US imperialism to greater or lesser degrees, particularly Iraqis and Palestinians at this juncture, and because they share a political history in common to greater or lesser degrees. Basically because they probably have a useful perspective to offer on Middle East politics!
The "other position" is really clear, it's "Neither Washington nor Damascus". IMO that's significantly different from "Long live the lion Assad".
this may be a tough pill to swollow for some Nincompoops & Acolytes of Balderdash, but it's a necessary pill— a Red Pill, in fact, in which we must keep faith. moldbug out.
Edited by eccentricdeathmongrel ()
Lessons posted:If you look at Soviet policy or whatever they didn't actually support everyone who thumbed their nose at the US, they tended to support leaders and movements they felt advanced the cause of communism. The stuff aerdil/RedKahina/eccentricdeathmongrel etc. are advancing is more like Mao's Three Worlds Theory which is what he picked up after he declared the GPCR over, killed Lin Biao, invited Deng back and invited Nixon to visit. It's pretty shite.
well said
discipline posted:I'd say the stakes were a little different back when the glorious USSR was in the game, wouldn't you, Thug Lessons?
Definitely but not in the way you're implying. I don't think there's any historical precedent for this mindset in the pre-USSR era, quite the opposite in WWI really where the communists and social democrats split over the SDs favoring 'lesser evils' and the communists maintaining neutrality. And you could probably credibly argue Britain held the same hegemonic status as the US does now, it's not a perfect parallel but probably the closest.
Lessons posted:If you look at Soviet policy or whatever they didn't actually support everyone who thumbed their nose at the US, they tended to support leaders and movements they felt advanced the cause of communism. The stuff aerdil/RedKahina/eccentricdeathmongrel etc. are advancing is more like Mao's Three Worlds Theory which is what he picked up after he declared the GPCR over, killed Lin Biao, invited Deng back and invited Nixon to visit. It's pretty shite.
it's actually the opposite. i'm in favor of Marcy's theory of the Global Class War. that s all for now bye
discipline posted:right and what did lenin say again about all that? oh right, alienate everyone who isn't a member of a nationality that benefits from imperialism by supporting imperialism by remaining silent on its crimes or relegating those to be equal with the nations under attack because the forces fighting it aren't pretty enough for you and I guess according to you thug lessons there is not a country on earth worth defending from imperialism so long as it doesn't include an actual bona fide US troops in US uniforms invasion
discipline posted:Lessons posted:discipline posted:
I'd say the stakes were a little different back when the glorious USSR was in the game, wouldn't you, Thug Lessons?
Definitely but not in the way you're implying. I don't think there's any historical precedent for this mindset in the pre-USSR era, quite the opposite in WWI really where the communists and social democrats split over the SDs favoring 'lesser evils' and the communists maintaining neutrality. And you could probably credibly argue Britain held the same hegemonic status as the US does now, it's not a perfect parallel but probably the closest.right and what did lenin say again about all that? oh right, alienate everyone who isn't a member of a nationality that benefits from imperialism by supporting imperialism by remaining silent on its crimes or relegating those to be equal with the nations under attack because the forces fighting it aren't pretty enough for you and I guess according to you thug lessons there is not a country on earth worth defending from imperialism so long as it doesn't include an actual bona fide US troops in US uniforms invasion
I have no idea where you're getting this, as far as I'm concerned we're in agreement about making US imperialism the primary or even overwhelming target of criticism and agitation, all I balk at is a) completely forbidding any criticism of the other side and b) unconditionally supporting any US enemy. Probably in practical terms we want the same sort of thing on our end unless you want to carry signs saying "Long Live the Lion Assad" and "Amnesty Lied, Assad is Innocent" at demos which I assume you don't?
Lessons posted:unless you want to carry signs saying "Long Live the Lion Assad" and "Amnesty Lied, Assad is Innocent" at demos which I assume you don't?
you assume this but you've been accusing people of saying this, over and over again, throughout the thread.
I don't think 3rd positionism is Unreasonable even though I do think that Assad's govt restabilizing would probably be the less bad outcome for Syria and the world in light of the most recent precedents. I don't know why you've been adopting this right-wing rhetoric accusing people of whitewashing Assad.
In this context, what does "neither Washington nor Damascus" mean to you? Is it that you don't think it makes much difference which side wins?
Lessons posted:If you look at Soviet policy or whatever they didn't actually support everyone who thumbed their nose at the US, they tended to support leaders and movements they felt advanced the cause of communism. The stuff aerdil/RedKahina/eccentricdeathmongrel etc. are advancing is more like Mao's Three Worlds Theory which is what he picked up after he declared the GPCR over, killed Lin Biao, invited Deng back and invited Nixon to visit. It's pretty shite.
Actually no, the Soviet Union was allied with the US and Britain - sworn enemies of communism - against Nazism.
now, tell me, what's the reason to uphold some sort of amorphous 'Arab popular opinion' (as if this is 1) empirically sound, 2) desirable for people who are at least nominally communists to base their entire moral justification on) over concrete analysis of contradictions between Arab state powers (including outright subjugated ones such as Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt), imperial fault-lines within the region (particularly actors who are opportunistically and deliberately exacerbating Sunni-Shiite tension)? It's preposterously stupid to analyze these countries on terms of 'tyrants and dictators' all the while claiming some sort of Marxist, scientific credentials. Dictatorships are class dictatorships. They are not one-man shows. This is clear Orientalism, there is no weaseling around it, regardless of what your "Arab friend" says. (Yes, I know he's "one of the good ones")
In the case of Hezbollah, you clearly have no sort of context of the history between Libya and Lebanon, apparently no inkling of any sort of material interest that Hezbollah may have had in issuing such statements, or why Hezbollah supported Syria while Hamas didn't (and why Hamas flipped). And the reason why is because you are 1) loading up an indivisible, inconcrete 'Arab people' with your own psychological content, 2) projecting idealistic conceptions onto a foreign complexity you instead intend to completely pave over. According to your parameters, Hezbollah somehow was the Voice of the People in regards to Libya, but now is an Iranian and Russian pawn of Tyrants in regards to Syria. Of course it doesn't occur to mention that Hezbollah may not even personally support Assad, but upholds the sovereignty and relative independence of Syria. To you, there is no distinction there, as your crude morality play needs an individual tyrannical figure to sustain itself.
Edited by Crow ()
RedKahina posted:Lessons posted:If you look at Soviet policy or whatever they didn't actually support everyone who thumbed their nose at the US, they tended to support leaders and movements they felt advanced the cause of communism. The stuff aerdil/RedKahina/eccentricdeathmongrel etc. are advancing is more like Mao's Three Worlds Theory which is what he picked up after he declared the GPCR over, killed Lin Biao, invited Deng back and invited Nixon to visit. It's pretty shite.
Actually no, the Soviet Union was allied with the US and Britain - sworn enemies of communism - against Nazism.
it's useful to point out that the USSR was aware of US and British prewar support of Germany, and was aware of US and British were dragging their heels on invasion to prolong the enormous strain that the Nazi onslaught had put on the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, they treated the US and Britain as principal allies during the war effort, even attempting to retain good relations after the war. That's because there was a more nuanced understanding of US and British state power than some mythical figure of the Forever Tyrant
getfiscal posted:crow is not wrong about me being unreliable but i was making fun of tug lesions and i still support the courageous lion assad
Im being ironic, also. فياض is dead and my irony travels with me now. It's فياض now
swirlsofhistory posted:The Syrian Communist Party knows all that and supports the government anyway, so presumably Syrian communists are themselves right-wing reactionaries, or the opposition alternative is so bad it necessitates making alliances like this.
last syria thread getfiscal told me they were themselves right-wing reactionaries, and communists should support communism, and I believe him.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:there's about as much 'fight' in global warming activism as there was in the US consulate in Bengazi
I love you iwc and you've given me a great opportunity to remind everyone that the "consulate" was a CIA paramilitary base and a legitimate target in a just war.
"al-qaeda is bad in syria but good in afghanistan" --anti-imperialist
makes u think
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10362
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm
Trotsky posted:I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!