The only sources they use to show the Syrian government are evil are terrorist and regime change ngos (and even then they exaggerate - none of these make his claim that the government has killed 400000 people afaik)
The evidence they use for the Revolution is pathetic: a press release from 2012 about delivering bags of rice, years dead charities whose social media is on a loop about killing Syrian soldiers.
The main thing I saw from their sources that was active was the fb page for the local council of Aleppo in the terrorist held area.
They seem to publish several press releases/statements daily as well as pictures of people dumping trash and digging gardens.
It's hard to know what to do with people convinced by that and who'll throw out all other evidence.
They are such a tiny weird cult maybe the best tactic is ignore them as much as possible?
Constantignoble posted:publisher of "Marxist analysis" uses the word "dictatorship" without qualifier
xipe posted:A history of Syria as a tinpot dictatorship would be nice too.
getfiscal posted:I support regime changes
Especially because each new regime has a chance to be incrementally better than the old one. It's like rolling a character in D&D. Are you going to be satisfied with Assad, whose stats are above average but whose best number is a 14 constitution? No, if you're America, you're going to re-roll a few times until you get something with a natural 20. You might have to "take some white-out to the character sheet" a few times but in the end you get a really good shot at an awesome Syria with a Six Flags not bound by our laws
Petrol posted:kinda disappointed in yall for attacking Ronnski for supporting the YPG rather than attacking Ronnski for unironically using the phrase "tinpot dictators"
G is for Gadafffi's Gulags
At one point, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to call Assad a "reformer" worthy of engagement.
*links to an article the "punditfact truth-o-meter" as proof that HClinton said this that very clearly states:*
Clinton’s original comments in March 2011 were not that straightforward. The statement in question was actually, "Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer." Clinton was talking about the beliefs of Congress and didn’t "defend" Assad, as Wallace put it, instead saying that the use of force that he deployed was more "than any of us would want to see."
fucking trots die already
- how do they manage to weigh the ' imperialism' of Russia etc equally with euro and us imperialism ... Arrogant racism is my guess but maybe they have some theory which justifies?
- is it fair to say trots are generally incompetent at struggle and this feeds into their hatred of real world socialism?
- if that is true laying out typical trot organising and praxis might be useful for communists to see what not to do
There are more things I'm wondering about, but its that pro imperial outlook that really drives me bonkers.
If I could find out what's going on in their brains that allows them call death squads revolutionaries and say us bombing will improve things I would find satisfaction.
I can easily accept their parasitic entryist behavior at home but must understand their impotent calls to abroad
Edited by xipe ()
getfiscal posted:like how people say that if there is democracy over government then why isn't there democracy over industry.
My 'radical' civic teacher in high school fit this bill. I remember him trying to make the case that "capitalism and democracy" are incompatible, which sort of paves the way to imply that "other systems" would work better with democracy.
On the other hand, for all of somebody like Chomsky's faults, Manufacturing Consent and Necessary Illusions helped blunt my enthusiasm for "capitalist democracy"; later, liberal democracy entirely.
Richard D Wolff also fits this bill, and while not identifying as a Trot, seems to transpose parts of their praxis onto his interpretations of Marxism.
xipe posted:Exploring the inner mind and mental model of the trot,
- how do they manage to weigh the ' imperialism' of Russia etc equally with euro and us imperialism ... Arrogant racism is my guess but maybe they have some theory which justifies?
whenever ive engaged the people that want marines to go and "fix some shithole country" or send weapons over to "our guys", there's always a preoccupation with other countries and very little to no knowledge or focus on the problems that one's own country produces, and behind that veneer is some sad parody of the Team America World Police plot
Themselves posted:My 'radical' civic teacher in high school fit this bill. I remember him trying to make the case that "capitalism and democracy" are incompatible
get this man an account
There is a consistent narrative with the people who come to this ideological dead end. There is a time when they have this feeling of dissociation between their internal morality and the actions of the ruling class. These political dissociation events can happen on a mass scale: OWS, the Iraq war protests, and BLM are examples.
How we are socialized greatly impacts how we grapple with this crisis of conscience and crisis of political identity. The old heroes and idols are thrown out and a person searches for new ones. This critical point is where we can see how people reshape their self-conception. Those entrenched in a settlerist anti-communist environment have difficulty in pushing through those barriers. They gravitate towards authors, groups, and blogs that will help provide a guideline for creating a new morality that removes the dissociation they feel.
I'll take an example of this new morality straight from the ISO:
The ISO is dedicated to trying to bring about a completely different society, free of all oppression and built on the principles of solidarity and democracy.
Such a society would have no need for a special body to coerce the population—a state
This is where this critical transition happens after the crisis of conscience, the feelings of anomie and listlessness transform into an intolerance based on morality rather than analysis. States are evil in and of themselves, the only remedy is popular struggle. Their old heroes are replaced with a fantastical mythology of popular resistance. They keep the core tenants of the anti-communist propaganda that was beat into them and transform it into one that can comfortably exist.
They go to meetings and chant against US imperialism, but they also shout down speakers that defend the USSR, the DPRK. Libya, and Syria since their conception puts all of the above countries in the same evil category. It is an activism based on their drive and search for a New Morality to create a New Humanity.
perfect article to understand the depravity of the anti-syrian left, the author makes a direct comparison to assad being supported by russian/iran as to franco being supported by hitler/mussolini. also features calling for the left to petition for US intervention
Panopticon posted:what is the point of analysis without morality?
Analysis without morality is a car without fuel, morality without analysis is fuel thrown on a fire.
of course that analysis collapses once you realise it's the main force for imperialism, and thus will always be funded over all other expenses. not too discredit their thinking further, but their idea of intervention is always the cost-effective (both in american lives and cash) and short variety. i mean, I'd support cuba intervening, because a) they tend to intervene to support a popular movement, b) their interventions bring more than weapons, but doctors and teachers and engineers to rebuild and c) they aren't trying to secure a profit, but would leave once they are no longer needed.
cuba's involvement in angola is one of the most important events in the 20th century, and their heroism and altruism shall serve as a guide to future socialist states during the transition to world communism.
xipe posted:how do they manage to weigh the ' imperialism' of Russia etc equally with euro and us imperialism ... Arrogant racism is my guess but maybe they have some theory which justifies?
It is actually a bit complex.
The group around Mandel tended to extend Trotsky's analysis that capitalist imperialism had reached the stage of a world system and could only be transcended through global revolution. But they did tend to engage with actually existing socialism, especially dissident moments within it. Like they praised Tito for repudiating Stalin and experimenting with worker's self-determination, and Mandel played a direct role in debates in Cuba over an alternative to the Soviet model of development. The mainline Trotskyists tended to see themselves as a critical perspective that was more sympathetic to guerrilla and national liberation movements while being critical of the Soviet Union's dominance within the socialist movement.
The ISO and groups like that are more centered on the ideas of Tony Cliff, which shares the idea of the impossibility of socialism in one country, but extends this into a broader critique of socialist countries to say that because they operate within a capitalist world-system that it is silly to consider them as operating largely counter to the logic of that system, at least for any length of time. So as far as they are concerned, no 'socialist camp' has ever really existed and only an international socialist revolution can build an alternative to capitalism. They tend to consider Mandelite types to be "soft" on Stalinism because Mandelites will flatter Cuba and other states.
So built in to the Cliffite model is a hatred of 'lesser evil' politics of any kind, because the autonomy of one section of imperialism cannot overthrow the entire imperialist system. It's just carving up pieces of a pie and not a social revolution. The problem with this, obviously, is that they have no idea how to navigate everyday politics in a successful manner, and paradoxically you do often getting these groups joining in politics that is very straightforward 'lesser evil', like when they campaigned for Morsi in Egypt or (where I live) the tendency to sometimes organize at the fringes of the NDP (despite repudiating the NDP as a socialist force).
getfiscal posted:xipe posted:how do they manage to weigh the ' imperialism' of Russia etc equally with euro and us imperialism ... Arrogant racism is my guess but maybe they have some theory which justifies?
It is actually a bit complex..
The ISO and groups like that are more centered on the ideas of Tony Cliff, which shares the idea of the impossibility of socialism in one country, but extends this into a broader critique of socialist countries to say that because they operate within a capitalist world-system that it is silly to consider them as operating largely counter to the logic of that system, at least for any length of time. So as far as they are concerned, no 'socialist camp' has ever really existed and only an international socialist revolution can build an alternative to capitalism.
Socialism can't be built in one country alone.
Oh. What then shall we do?
If you believe in Socialism, clap your hands. Eventually, the entire international working class will also be clapping, and Socialism will follow.
...
Are you going to buy the newspaper or not
Though traces remain of other strains of Trotskyism, the Cliffite line is pretty much the only game in town now. There's no way it would propagate without the continuous swooping on disaffected youth on campuses and at protests, preying on still-developing minds concerned with inequality and prone to idealism. Every now and then I actually see posters advertising some kind of class or lecture series the sAlt kids run about the hero Trotsky and his principled opposition to the demon Stalin. This is how you propose to teach Marxism to newcomers? I would be surprised if their "What is Marxism?" classes were much different, beyond a puddle-shallow statement of principles (capitalism bad, etc).
It should be clear, when the ISO and its ideological family turn their attention to contemporary matters such as Syria, that the rejection of socialism in one country reveals itself to have nothing at its core other than a bloody-minded allegiance to the anglo-american empire. There is simply no other reason to defend US intervention in a country yet condemn Russian intervention, completely disregard the views of local communists, and so on. So this can, as xipe suggests, be described as racism - a huge amount of orientalism is involved in practice, as it always has been in the ideological defence of empire - but fundamentally what we are surely dealing with here is simply class interest dressed up in a perverse and superficial presentation of Marxist principles.
Petrol posted:Though traces remain of other strains of Trotskyism, the Cliffite line is pretty much the only game in town now.
Within the English-speaking world this is true, but that's a small (but very influential) share of worldwide Trotskyism. In France more orthodox forms of Trotskyism are still prevalent, as well as different forms across Latin America. Plus I think the ISO has like 1,200 members while the DSA has almost 8,000 now.
getfiscal posted:Petrol posted:Though traces remain of other strains of Trotskyism, the Cliffite line is pretty much the only game in town now.
Within the English-speaking world this is true, but that's a small (but very influential) share of worldwide Trotskyism. In France more orthodox forms of Trotskyism are still prevalent, as well as different forms across Latin America. Plus I think the ISO has like 1,200 members while the DSA has almost 8,000 now.
I admit I was talking just about the anglo sphere, as it's what I'm familiar with and it's what we tend to talk about when we talk about Trotskyism.
A quick glance at the number of Trotskyist groups in France suggests an incredibly splintered field. Is/are there more dominant group(s) among them, and are they other than Cliffite? (As an aside, I wonder how the existence of this wide array of Trot grouplets influences the electoral power of the PS, if at all..) As for Latin America, I am not about to pretend to know anything about the Trotskyist field there, but I would be surprised if it was not also significantly splintered. I suppose what I am seeing is a situation not terribly different from the anglophone world, where non-Cliffite strains still exist, but Cliffites dominate perhaps due to the disproportionate historical influence of the British SWP.
As for the DSA, I wouldn't count socdems as Trotskyist. Sure, they stand opposed to "authoritarian communism", but theoretically they seem far more wishy-washy "new left". I mean, this introduction to democratic socialism on the DSA site doesn't reference Trotsky at all, even though it mentions Marx, Lenin, and... Gramsci? Meanwhile, the SI Declaration of Principles doesn't mention Marx a single time (let alone any other Marxist) - in fact, it doesn't even attempt to define Socialism! And considering the behaviour of SI member parties when they have gained power - such as the aforementioned French PS - that makes a lot of sense. It's much harder to pin them down for abandoning their principles when they are so loosely defined in the first place.
This was 1 of over 100 messages. "Either change your rhetoric or we will continue to campaign against you" @roqchams pic.twitter.com/DELXcTawka
— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) August 29, 2016
bit of a showdown on twitter going on at the moment between pro and anti syria intervention journos