daddyholes posted:haha yase two capitalists 'disagree'
what, they can have different interests.... i mean, are you saying disagreements are all a #spectacle or what?
daddyholes posted:haha yase two capitalists 'disagree'
"Kiss the rang, bitch" --Vladimir "Super Bowl Sunday" Putin
What is bizarre and disturbing is that Western progressives who are fighting for the very same freedoms and rights revolutionary Syrians are being killed for wanting are adopting the same slogans and policy preferences as Assad’s defenders, namely: “hands off Syria” and “no to Western intervention in Syria.”
I am talking about people like lifelong revolutionary socialists Tariq Ali and John Rees."
"To those firmly in the camp of Assad’s counter-revolution: if you can watch these videos of children in Aleppo or teenagers in Damascus without feeling like running out into those streets to join their clapping, dancing, chanting, and singing, I have to question whether you are a human being with feelings and emotions much less a so-called revolutionary."
"The Free Syrian Army is a non-sectarian group. See their Christian unit"
"There are sectarian elements among revolutionary forces, but they tend to operate independently of the FSA precisely because it is not a sectarian force"
"This hue and cry over fears sectarianism emanates mostly from the Assad regime and finds an echo among Syria’s minorities communities and (ironically) Western opponents of imperialism who seem to look for any excuse not to aid the revolution"
"The “anti-imperialist” crowd is going to sit this one out, screaming about an invasion that will never happen, meanwhile Russian and Iranian imperialism send weapons, money, and boots on the ground to slaughter civilians and revolutionaries alike."
"The biggest hurdle the Free Syrian Army faces now is a lack of arms"
"If you want to thwart U.S. imperialist, help topple Assad and establish a bourgeois democracy in Syria; it’s what the U.S. and Israel fear most."
"Everywhere the Pentagon puts a minus you turn it into a plus and call it Marxism. It’s quite amusing."
"War is politics by other means and no two wars are identical."
"The message from the “anti-imperialist” camp in the West is clear: when Israel does it, it’s a crime; when Assad does it, it’s criminal for his victims to seek military aid from the West/Saudis to survive the one-sided onslaught."
"Anti-interventionists in the West opposed this military aid to the revolution; had NATO withdrawn this aid, Ghadafi would have triumphed."
"Today, Libyans enjoy freedom of speech, freedom to protest and organize, and most importantly, freedom from fear of state repression. The Western left ought to join the revolutionary masses of the Arab and North African world in celebrating this historic victory, not isolate ourselves from them by mourning (or slandering) it."
"Knee-jerk anti-imperialism leads to our enemies doing our thinking for us: whatever Uncle Sam wants, we oppose; whatever Uncle Sam opposes, we want. This method plays right into U.S. imperialism’s hands because the last thing Uncle Sam wants is a thinking enemy."
"The slaughter of the Syrian people will continue unabated without meaningful outside interference. Once again, the Allies have refused to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz — but this time, with the support of Western progressives."
"The Palestinians, in turn, support the Syrian revolution. This is in no small part because hundreds of Palestinians in Syria have been slaughtered by Assad’s relentless shelling of hospitals, refugee camps, and bread lines. Hamas, the governing party in the Gaza Strip, even broke off relations with Assad’s government and came out in support of the Syrian revolution.
Washington, D.C. is not looking forward to seeing the end of Assad’s brutal state machine, a machine that lent its services to Bush by torturing Maher Arar (anti-imperialists, take note). Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta even admitted he’d hate to see Syria’s uniformed torturers and rapists disband: “The best way to preserve … stability is to maintain as much of the military and police as you can, along with security forces, and hope that they will transition to a democratic form of government.”
Assad’s tyrannical police state apparatus is essential to keeping the Syrian and Palestinian peoples divided and oppressed, too weak to resist Israel, and unable to organize freely, openly, and effectively for their political and social emancipation.
The use of chemical weapons won’t change that calculus for Washington."
"The U.S. wants an Egypt-style outcome in Syria, not a Libya-style outcome."
-pham binh, reputable blogger at the North Star, national security advisor
Edited by statickinetics ()
statickinetics posted:That the Syrian regime’s sycophants should demand a “hands off” policy from Washington, London, and Melbourne is logical.
lol
actually, that's basically what the pro-assad forces are saying, too. the syrian ba'athist party is a bourgeois-nationalist party, and the pro-assad line is essentially saying that the invasion of US-backed jihadists is designed to ruin the country and turn it into an outright neocolony, as part of a network of collapsed states around israel. personally i still think it'll end in a negotiated settlement between pro-US rebels and ba'athist elites for a national unity government, but how would i know i guess.
i do think there's something to be said for not tailing after bourgeois leaders, though. this is something that became very confused under the later USSR but also by trotskyists generally. lenin's criticism of left-communists wasn't based on lesser evilism. lenin's model for critical support of nominally progressive bourgeois forces was always based on the idea that they were being exposed as being largely frauds. it was always to exhaust the possibilities presented by centrists so as to clear the ground for revolution. this process was also supposed to be supported by independent communist parties based on working class leadership. now there are Syrian Communist Parties supporting assad, but they are domesticated parties that are extensions of ba'athist rule, and they did little to resist the harsh market reforms that assad had been pushing for years.
getfiscal posted:pham binh's position annoys me because it isn't even good trotskyism. trotsky's theory of permanent revolution was explicitly anti-stageist. the world-historical progressive role of the bourgeoisie was considered firmly in the past, meaning that the working class had to lead any progressive revolution. the idea that you build a bourgeois democracy first and then have a proletarian revolution is explicitly saying that the bourgeoisie is progressive in syria.
actually, that's basically what the pro-assad forces are saying, too. the syrian ba'athist party is a bourgeois-nationalist party, and the pro-assad line is essentially saying that the invasion of US-backed jihadists is designed to ruin the country and turn it into an outright neocolony, as part of a network of collapsed states around israel. personally i still think it'll end in a negotiated settlement between pro-US rebels and ba'athist elites for a national unity government, but how would i know i guess.
i do think there's something to be said for not tailing after bourgeois leaders, though. this is something that became very confused under the later USSR but also by trotskyists generally. lenin's criticism of left-communists wasn't based on lesser evilism. lenin's model for critical support of nominally progressive bourgeois forces was always based on the idea that they were being exposed as being largely frauds. it was always to exhaust the possibilities presented by centrists so as to clear the ground for revolution. this process was also supposed to be supported by independent communist parties based on working class leadership. now there are Syrian Communist Parties supporting assad, but they are domesticated parties that are extensions of ba'athist rule, and they did little to resist the harsh market reforms that assad had been pushing for years.
live rounds used: http://extra.globo.com/videos/t/noticias/v/policiais-dao-tiros-de-fuzil-e-pistola-durante-protestos-no-centro-do-rio-de-janeiro/2640192/
the fact they seem to be running into barriers at building themselves up domestically is a really important point though however it could mean events g either way since it could either create the class alliances necessary to 'develop' or it could usher in collapse as the state fails to finally finish gaining complete control over its territory beyond what was necessary for capital accumulation
statickinetics posted:"That the Syrian regime’s sycophants should demand a “hands off” policy from Washington, London, and Melbourne is logical. They do not want any outside force to interfere with the regime’s all-out war on its own people. They do not want Western arms for the Free Syrian Army, U.S. or British efforts to block Russian warships from bringing guns, bombs, bullets, helicopter parts, and gasoline to Assad, or Western airstrikes against the regime’s tanks, aircraft, and helicopters.
What is bizarre and disturbing is that Western progressives who are fighting for the very same freedoms and rights revolutionary Syrians are being killed for wanting are adopting the same slogans and policy preferences as Assad’s defenders, namely: “hands off Syria” and “no to Western intervention in Syria.”
such as the Syrian Communist Party
getfiscal posted:personally i still think it'll end in a negotiated settlement between pro-US rebels and ba'athist elites for a national unity government
it seems more likely that it will end in a negotiated settlement between anti-US rebels and ba'athist elites for a national unity government
Superabound posted:good news! Pentagon announces plans to "allow" women in combat, just in time for brand new war
*puts on "Not One Vagina For Imperialism" t-shirt*
getfiscal posted:now there are Syrian Communist Parties supporting assad, but they are domesticated parties that are extensions of ba'athist rule, and they did little to resist the harsh market reforms that assad had been pushing for years.
of course this means (obviously) that almost every communist is worthless
getfiscal posted:it isn't even good trotskyism
-- Wolfgang "Pauli" Walnuts
daddyholes posted:getfiscal posted:now there are Syrian Communist Parties supporting assad, but they are domesticated parties that are extensions of ba'athist rule, and they did little to resist the harsh market reforms that assad had been pushing for years.
of course this means (obviously) that almost every communist is worthless
whats this meant to mean
jools posted:daddyholes posted:getfiscal posted:now there are Syrian Communist Parties supporting assad, but they are domesticated parties that are extensions of ba'athist rule, and they did little to resist the harsh market reforms that assad had been pushing for years.
of course this means (obviously) that almost every communist is worthless
whats this meant to mean
most communists dont do much to resist harsh market reforms