Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
Forum Index » Discussion » Current Events » Why did Russia block the UN resolution on Syria? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ][ Next ]
Soviet cogitations: 13
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jul 2011, 15:36 New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)  16 Feb 2012, 21:10
Because the western capitalists should mind their own damn business and stop sticking their noses into other nations "problems" if you will. Russia was smart, they knew all the U.N. is is a western capital obtaining alliance like NATO, and all the main members such as the U.S. and Britain would just be there to secure a place in the asset and capital markets of the middle east through Syria. So damn right that Russia still has the pride of the great C.C.C.P. to stop american imperialism. ITS NEVER TRUE JUSTICE ANYMORE, JUST ANOTHER WAY OF COVERING YOUR ASS WITH ANOTHERS. : \
17 Feb 2012, 12:51
Quote: Pointing out the extent of political suppression. How many parties are banned in the west? Quote: Exactly. What's wrong with that? Quote: I'm not implying it is a shining example of what all states should ultimately look like, I'm saying it's what the Syrian state should aim for. It is qualitatively superior to the Syrian state. Quote: I'm not saying it's the bastion of freedom and I don't think the Syrian or the US states should be invading other countries. I'm saying the Syrian state should aim to reach similar levels of plurality and the rule of law as the US state. Quote: I did earlier but you clearly didn't bother reading it. Ok, here it is again: "Although the bourgeoisie in the west wield a monopoly of influence over public opinion and ideology, by it's very nature it tolerates a pluralism of ideas within society. The bourgeois model actually relies on this pluralism because it posits itself as the ideological victor in the debate against alternatives to the capitalist model. In order to display itself as the victor, it must allow unhindered public access to these alternatives so as to emphasise the contest and thus the victory. The fact that it allows us to freely examine the alternatives (just as we have all done) and come to "our own" conclusions (obviously with a lot of help from bourgeois propaganda), some of us inevitably slip through the net (i.e. people like us). Thus the fundamental character (and contradiction) of the democratic bourgeois model is that it allows for people to plot the alternative to capitalism and the bourgeoisie themselves." Quote: Yes, state repression to defend the bourgeois state. I never denied the US state would do that. However, those arrested weren't thrown into jail to be locked away for years, they weren't tortured, some of them are exercising their right to sue to authorities for maltreatment during arrest. None of this would happen in Syria. I don't know much about FRSO and the FBI. Quote: Whereas yours is centred on principles, something which is incompatible with dialectics and dialectical analysis. Last edited by gRed Britain on 17 Feb 2012, 17:06, edited 1 time in total.
17 Feb 2012, 12:54
Quote: Yeah nice ideals, but how are you actually going to stop them from doing this? Quote: Yeah because Russia today hates capitalism... Quote: Yep, thank god the USSR never collapsed 20 years ago. Oh wait... 17 Feb 2012, 17:30
Quote: Actually the CP was banned in West Germany. SDS, the Panthers, the CP, etc. etc. were not officially banned but were (sometimes violently) repressed at various times in the West. And that repression continues to this very day. Quote: Well for a liberal like yourself, I suppose nothing. But for anti-imperialists, this is a very problematic stance: if Syria becomes yet another US ally in the "Middle East": then the hegemony of the US is sustained and it's grip on power increased. This is not a good thing for the working class in either Syria or the US. Quote: Why would you not want Syria to aim for at least a social democratic state of the Nordic countries, or of course better yet: a socialist state? (Although Syria is nominally a socialist state) Quote: Thus you're demonstrating that you have a romantic/unrealistic view of the United States. I suggest you read something along the lines of A People's History of the United States and challenge your rosy view of the US. Quote: And this is exactly what I just accused you of doing. My simplified caricature of your argument seems essentially in line with what you've written here. You're saying "bourgeois democracy should be promoted because it provides the tools for people to oppose it" Again, this logic is contradictory. Why would you promote something just so you can work against it? Wouldn't you rather want to look at the situation and find the best strategy for how to oppose or combat bourgeois democracy then? Quote: Actually they likely are going to go to jail for years. Maybe they weren't tortured, but over the past decade the US has directly practiced torture. And has always facilitated such thing (at least throughout the Cold War) by "exporting" and overseeing it happening in places that the US doesn't have jurisdiction over. More of your liberal rosy colored vision of the US shining through though. Quote: No, I'm employing historical materialism and anti-imperialism. You, on the other hand, are appealing to liberal idealism. What "principles" am I appealing to exactly? Quote: By building working class resistance to Western capital? Quote: Actually, a majority of Russians say that life was better under the USSR, so you're correct here.  17 Feb 2012, 18:26
Quote: So a significant improvement over Syria and its list as long as your arm. Parties like the Panthers did engage in violent activity which does provide the state with grounds with which to suppress groups. Quote: So you're saying that Syria cannot complete its bourgeois revolution? That conventional histomat is inapplicable there? Quote: Nordic countries: yes, absolutely. That is bourgeois democracy (do you not think they are?). Socialist state: I would support them if a Marxist party came to power but I doubt they would achieve much. They would eventually resort to state capitalism. Quote: How is my view romantic or unrealistic? I'm saying the US state is better to live under than the Syrian state. Quote: It also develops class consiousness. It gives the working classes a greater awareness of politics, the political system and what needs to be changed. It results in things like independent trade unions, workers' parties, etc. The freedoms of the British state in the 19th century allowed Marx and Lenin to study and write anti-capitalist literature in the British Museum in the heart of London! Bourgeois-democracy also helps develop capitalism as it gives democracy to the bourgeoisie (just as developed socialism must give democracy to the proletariat). Quote: Because it results in a greater development of capitalism. Capitalism is an essential phase of human progress. Quote: Once it has been achieved and run its course, yes. Quote: Yeah, don't like that, but still not nearly as bad as in Syria. To try and argue that the US state today is as bad as the Syrian state today is laughable. They are qualitively different states. Quote: You are applying the principle that we should always oppose the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are essential to building capitalism; something which Syria still needs to develop. Developed capitalism is essential before a successful proletarian revolution can occur. Quote: Mother of all empty phrases. How about you provide some detail as to how exactly you attempt to do this? 17 Feb 2012, 20:12
While I deeply regret the lack of a Soviet counterweight to Western imperialism in today's world, I am very grateful to Stalin, Molotov, Litvinov and Gromyko for pushing so hard to set up right of veto in the Security Council. With that right, Russia can stand against the majority of the 'international community' on occasion and do the right thing, and the rising superpower of China will eventually be able to play a more active role in the future. If there was no veto right, what happened in Libya would be the norm.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
18 Feb 2012, 17:54
gRed Britain wrote: The Panthers engaged in militant self defense. Your line of "they engaged in violent activity" line is essentially what the FBI narrative is, quite incredible that you would repeat it. gRed Britain wrote: Syria is a capitalist country actually. Quote: Ah, here comes the real line of yours: you don't support a workers revolution in Syria but only a bourgeois one and are thus just on the side of the capitalist class there? Quote: Yet you promote a false version of the US and US history that needs to fit into your rosy picture of it as a "free" "great" place. Thus absurdity requires much historical revisionism. Quote: This isn't the 19th century, capital has developed quite a lot since Marx and Lenin. What the working class in the 21st century needs is not more domination of capital, but a strong worker movement to challenge the rule of capital. It seems you think that we, as Marxists, should support capital over labor however. Quote: It seems that you haven't read much past Marx. I shouldn't be so hard on you for being new to Marxism, but the development of Capitalism in the 20th century should be a demonstration of how we need to get away from the notion that we should support capitalist development in any situation at this point. Quote: And how are we to know when it has "run its course"? Quote: More liberal idealism. If Syria became a "bourgeois democracy" it would more likely than not be a puppet of US imperialism which would be quite bad for the working class of Syria, and help strengthen Israel's power in the region. Your abstract notion of "freedom" and "rights" in the region are laughable. The US tried to implement similar reforms in Iraq, and look how that's gone for the people of Iraq. Quote: As I said earlier, Syria has a capitalist class. Much of the economy there is, however, under command of the state. So would you propose that Syria should privatize state enterprises for profit seeking industries to take ownership of? This would put you right in line with the IMF Neoliberal project of strengthening the power of capital. This is an anti-working class stance. Quote: So you want me to explain in a thread about how the working class of countries should take power in the West? You realize that there are hundreds of books on this, and this debate has been going on since Marx, right? I know that you're likely unfamiliar with these debates, so I suggest you start by reading Lenin's "What is to be done?" or "The State and Revolution" 18 Feb 2012, 19:04
Quote: The US state (like any state) excludes violence from the political sphere. Thus rightly or wrongly, Panther violence gave the state grounds to persecute them. However, the US state still allows peaceful debate, etc. I'm not defending the actions of the US state against the Panthers but in Syria you have both the violence and the lack of peaceful debate. Quote: A developing one. Britain in 1750 was a capitalist country but it was not ready for a proletarian revolution. Syria still has 45% of its population living in rural areas. source Quote: Of course. How do you expect a proletarian revolution to ultimately succeed in Syria considering its current state of socioeconomic development? Quote: Ah, quoting things I never said. There are more freedoms in the US than there are in Syria. Quote: Yes, the state allows even more freedoms now. It also allows us unrestricted access to the internet where we can go on sites like this and debate the overthrow of capitalism. There is compulsory education and illiteracy levels have soared. More working class people have the potential to access and understand the material that explains why we need to get rid of capitalism. Syria of course doesn't have this level of access to information. Quote: In the developed world, yes. In the developing world, no. There capitalism needs to develop first. Quote: What specifically are you talking about in 20th century capitalism? It has a lot of success stories, especially after WW2. Quote: Well it's not like there is an alarm clock waiting to go off. In the developed world, now would be a good time (or maybe it still has some way to go). Either way, when we see a proletarian revolution here. The bourgeois revolution occurred when feudalism had run its course. Quote: If the west invested in Syria it would provide huge amounts of high tech capital. It would also ncrease the rate in which the population became proletarians. What's wrong with my notions of freedom and rights? If they are ruled by any state then they won't have true freedom. But you cannot deny you have more rights and freedoms under the US state than the Syrian one. You seem to be implying that there is no difference between the two states. Quote: It takes a long time. The English bourgeois revolution took decades. Quote: It would likely improve the rate of production. Ideally you would want as many of them owned by Syrian bourgeoisie as possible. That's why I support Syria having bourgeois democracy but not as a result of Western puppet masters. Quote: More principles from you. We should support the working class when they are in a position to lead society (i.e. successful democratic socialism). Supporting them in Syria now as a revolutionary class would be fairly pointless if you expected them to achieve anything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have solidarity with them but that is as much a message to our own working class as it is to Syria's. Quote: No, how should developing countries shake off the yoke of western imperialism? How can somewhere like Chad successfully overthrow imperialist influence on it? And I want concrete measures, not "build working class resistance to it." Quote: I've read these and many other works. I can assure you I am not unfamiliar with Marxism. Though I can't help but notice that you keep making these snide remarks throughout the thread implying I don't know what I'm talking about or labelling me politically as a liberal etc (you sound like a Pope denouncing a heretic). As I said earlier in the thread, I would advise against using insults (even veiled ones such as yours) as they imply you've run out of argument. Interstingly, you failed to address the question I asked in my last post so here it is again. Is Syria incapable of completing its bourgeois revolution? Is conventional histomat inapplicable there? 19 Feb 2012, 18:30
Quote: You realize that the violence that the Panthers engaged in was a response to police violence against the black community though, right? Quote: Syria is not like Britain in 1750 in any way. That comparison is nonsensical. And even if having a large percentage of folks living in rural areas was a sign of those folks not being workers (which it's not), still a clear majority thus don't live there. So your point is irrelevant. Quote: Because there is a working class in Syria that should determine the fate of Syria, not the American or Israeli capitalist class. Quote: But for you to make such an abstract comparison demonstrates that you have a liberal view of the United States and "freedom and democracy" in general. You seem unable to contextualize the difference between Syria and the US. Quote: I don't really see how any of this supports your point that Syria should become "more capitalist" or that we should support the US trying to implement Western "democracy" on Syria. Quote: So do you oppose the Russian, Chinese, Cuba revolutions and the African liberation struggles of the 20th century? Quote: Well even the "golden age of capitalism" that I'm assuming you're referring to here was based on the exploitation of the developing world. This is your fundamental flaw here: assuming that the developing world should just neutrally move to a higher form of capitalist production, when in reality it exists within the global imperialist context. Quote: Is Syria Feudal? Quote: Again, how did that work out for Iraq? The fact that you support the US taking over a country and killing thousands of people demonstrates that you are simply a liberal who clearly doesn't understand the concept of imperialism. Your bleeding heart liberalism leads to support the Clinton type liberal interventionism that has brought Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya into the US imperialist sphere to the determent of the people of those countries (by every measurement). Quote: You've got to be fragging kidding me. How is the English bourgeois revolution in any way similar to the US invasion of Iraq exactly? Iraq was not a feudal state with an emerging bourgeoisie rising to challenge that order. It was a developing capitalist country that took an independent nationalist route that was destroyed by global capital for the benefit of energy and finance capital. Quote: Yet you just said you support US intervention in Syria. You can't have it both ways. And there is a Syrian bourgeoisie that is opposed to the Western bourgeoisie (that's what this whole conflict is about). And how would Neoliberal reforms improve the rate of production? Can you cite a single case where that actually worked? Quote: I'm a Communist, so I support the notion that the working class ought to own the means of production. You're a liberal so you don't. I use a Marxian analysis to understand these questions, and you use a liberal one that is based on ideology. How have you expressed any sort of solidarity with the Syrian working class in these posts? You explicitly said that they should be subordinated to Western capital. Quote: You seem to be quite unfamiliar with the second half of the 20th century. Quote: Well then you clearly disagree with Lenin's stance that we should oppose imperialism. Just about everything you've said is quite clearly based on a liberal ideology: abstracting what "freedoms" are and even what bourgeois rule really means. Quote: Syria is a capitalist country and yes the working class could take power and build socialism there, no question. You seem to be under the false assumption that Syria is a feudal country that has an emerging capitalist class that needs help from Western capital. This assumption has two major flaws: 1) Syria is not an emerging capitalist country out of a feudal situation and 2) the West has no right to intervene in Syria. 19 Feb 2012, 20:04
Quote: Yes, I can quite see the state using this to manufacture a reason to suppress them. However, the US state still retains a peaceful public sphere for political engagement and debate. The Syrian state does not. Quote: I wasn't making a direct comparison, I was just pointing out that just because a country is in the early stages of capitalism doesn't mean it is ready for a proletarian revolution. Quote: What about the Syrian bourgeoisie? Or are they irrelevant in your principle-laden analysis? Quote: No, I am saying the Syrian and US states are qualitatively different. You are the one who appears to be implying that the Syrian and US states are basically the same. Quote: I'm merely saying Syria should complete its bourgeois revolution and become a bourgeois democracy. Quote: I find it difficult to oppose or support things which have been and gone in the past. African liberation struggles definitely because countries tend to develop once their own bourgeoisie are given the reigns to take power as opposed to being completely dominated by the colonial European bourgeoisie. Thus an independent India is much better than colonial India even though they both exist(ed) under the capitalist system. China and Cuba are now making market-based reforms because they realise this is the way to develop the productive forces and that capitalism is needed. Russia provides us with examples on what went right and what went wrong with Leninist socialism. We can learn from this. Quote: Japan achieved the early stages of its bourgeois revolution in the latter half of the 19th century. From 1868 to the 1890s it was dominated by imperialism and had several unequal treaties with most of the western powers. However, by developing its capitalism it managed to break free of imperialist domination. After WW2 you could say it completed its bourgeois revolution (bourgeois democracy was introduced) and Japan is now the 3rd largest economy in the world and a very developed country. Quote: It is in the early stages of capitalism and retains some aspects of feudalism (it is essentially an absolute monarchy). Quote: Again, it takes time. Quote: Yet more things I never said. Another note, putting words into people's mouths will also serve to cheapen your argument. Quote: I'm just pointing out that revolutions take time. It took years for the USSR to reach pre-1917 levels of production. Does that mean you would defend Tsarism? Iraq was indeed a developing capitalist country. However, it too did not have bourgeois democracy. Ideally, that revolution should have come from within rather than being imposed by the US. That's why I want the Syrian bourgeoisie to achieve their own bourgeois democracy, not have it imposed by external forces. Quote: No I didn't. Quote me on it. Quote: Lol most of the developed world? Japan, Hong Kong, China, South Korea, India. Why do you think the bourgeoisie like laissez faire if it doesn't improve the rate of production? Quote: And herein lies your principle. You fail to understand that when you analyse along the lines of dialectical materialism, you have to come to your conclusions considering the situation. Here is an example from Luxemburg. She highlights two separate events: the Swiss peasant revolt against the Hapsburgs in the 14th century - a democratic movement designed to achieve the independence of the Swiss cantons; and the Hungarian Magyar bourgeois uprising in 1848 against the Austrians - a bourgeois movement which itself helped the Austrian government suppress Italian independence fighters. "The method and the viewpoint on national politics of Marx and Engels are brought into high relief by this comparison. Despite all the external evidences of revolutionism in the Swiss movement, and despite the indisputable two-edged character of the Magyar movement, obvious in the flunkeyism with which the Hungarian revolutionaries helped the Vienna government to suppress the Italian revolution, the creators of scientific socialism sharply criticized the Swiss uprising as a reactionary event, while they supported fervently the Hungarian uprising in 1848. In both cases they were guided not by the formula of “the right of nations to self-determination,” which obviously was much more applicable to the Swiss than to the Magyars, but only by a realistic analysis of the movements from a historical and political standpoint. The uprising of the fragmented peasant cantons, with their regionalism against the centralist power of the Hapsburgs, was, in the eyes of Engels, a sign of historical reaction, just as the absolutism of the princely power, moving toward centralism, was at that time an element of historical progress. From a similar standpoint, we note in passing, Lassalle regarded the peasant wars, and the parallel rebellion of the minor knights of the nobility in Germany in the sixteenth century against the rising princely power, as signs of reaction. On the other hand, in 1848, Hapsburg absolutism was already a reactionary relic of the Middle Ages, and the national uprising of the Hungarians – a natural ally of the internal German revolution – directed against the Hapsburgs naturally had to be regarded as an element of historical progress." - emphasis mine. Your principle of "always support the working classes no matter what" is clearly despatched here by Luxemburg, Marx and Engels and their dialectical materialism. Here Marx and Engels condemned a democratic peasant uprising because they were not blinded by principles and realised it was not altogether progressive. We should support the working classes when the conditions are right for them to achieve their historical goal. Quote: If you read the passage I cited above it's pretty obvious it's the other way around. There is nothing Marxian in your analysis, simply liberal idealism. Quote: I want them to live under a less repressive state. It seems you want them to remain under the brutal dictatorship of Assad. Nice solidarity... Quote: You seem to have completely dodged my question. I'll ask it again. How should developing countries shake off the yoke of western imperialism? How can somewhere like Chad successfully overthrow imperialist influence on it? And I want concrete measures, not "build working class resistance to it." Quote: In developed capitalist countries, yes. We should fight againt it by fighting against capitalism. Quote: Enlighten me, what are your definitions of freedom and bourgeois rule? Quote: No, again you've dodged my question. I asked Is Syria incapable of completing its bourgeois revolution? Is conventional histomat inapplicable there? Quote: No, it is a capitalist country but in a much earlier stage of capitalism than the developed world. Quote: Principles again? Rights don't exist and the west won't be subordinated to them. That's why I hope the completion of the Syrian bourgeois revolution is completed internally. 20 Feb 2012, 06:28
Quote: It's quite incredible that when talking about the violent repression of the Panthers that you can at the same time try to bring up the "peaceful public sphere for political engagement and debate" when that very repression is clearly a counter example of how that sphere is a myth (or at the very based, the result of something clearly not peaceful). Quote: You seem to have a strange conception of what Syria is. Do you think it's still in transition from Feudalism? Quote: They aren't irrelevant, they are clearly a more nationalist bourgeoisie that does not want to be a under control of international finance capital. Quote: Of course they're different. Where did I ever claim that they are the same? We are focusing on different differences, however. You keep pointing to the US as some sort of ideal example of a "democratic free" bourgeois state, where I'm pointing out how absurd that is. Quote: Yet you're completley unclear on what "completing its bourgeois revolution" actually means. And in the context of what's going on right now, it seems that you think that means that it should capitulate to Western imperialism. This, by the way, is not a very productive way for an economy to develop even pragmatically. Quote: Then why are you not supporting an independent Syria in this case? Quote: Well Cuba and China are different from each other, but that's a whole other thread. Quote: Japan, as you pointed out, developed capitalism quite early on and even became an imperialist power itself. Thus it is no way comparable to "developing countries" of the later 20th and early 21st century. Again I don't see the relevance here. Quote: Syria is not an absolute monarchy. As a matter of fact, it's strange that you would call it that when it is one of the few countries in the region that isn't. It would be very interesting if you could point to parts of the Syrian production process that in any way constitute feudalism. If anything Ba'athist rule has done away with any such "leftovers." Quote: In other words: we should just trust that Haliburton and the various energy and military industrial companies gaining more profit will eventually make Iraq more like the US, so they can finally "freely discuss ways to overthrow capitalism"? This is such a bizarre analysis. Quote: Do you really think Iraq is even a functioning bourgeois democracy now? There was no revolution in Iraq, there was an invasion: so the structural consequences of what exists now are not the result of internal class forces, but external imperialist interests. Syria has been achieving their own capitalist production, they don't "need" the US to come in and tell it how to do it. Quote: Wow, you've got to be kidding me. Japan, China, and RoK, for example, did not achieve high rates of growth as a result of NeoLiberalism but instead as the result of a very controlled high government interventionist methodology. Hong Kong went through significant crisis (as did the rest of the "Asian Tigers") as well as other places like Argentina, Egypt, etc. that implemented those IMF reforms. China, they certainly haven't implemented NeoLiberal reforms, if you look how much power the state has there. And India's working class, peasant, and small farm worker populations have been quite deviated by Neoliberalism. Let's not forget that the West, where these reforms have been implemented starting since the 70s, has not only been in this current serious crisis as a result, but has had a more fundamental issues since that time. It's quite incredible that a "Marxist" would actually try to praise the economic results of Neoliberalism considering the blatantly obvious flaws within it. Even capitalist apologists and liberals acknowledge this. Quote: I'm not sure how those examples are relevant here. And I do employ dialectical materialism, this is the method (although the term wasn't coined at the time) that Lenin used when he wrote Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Quote: They were also writing in a time where the working class wasn't the majority of the world as it is today. Feudalism has been mostly exterminated in most parts of the world, and the "stagist" idea of "we need to support the progressive role of the bourgeois" has hardly been relevant since about the US Civil War. Quote: Supporting working class revolution and opposing imperialism is liberal idealism? So you're being the "better Marxist" by supporting imperialism and the bourgeois class against an invented feudal system (that of course doesn't actually exist in Syria) Quote: No, I want them to not be the target of imperialism. I think it's important to contextualize this uprising. You, on the other hand, seem to just want to assume that clearly they are just demanding "more freedom" and other abstract notions. In reality, it exists in the context of imperialist ambition and intervention that's already going on (e.g. look at how Turkey has been helping the FSA and what the SNC is calling for) Quote: Well an example here would be to support Syria's efforts against the US and NATO. This is no longer just an internal battle, but the West is actively trying to create a puppet state. Working class organizations in Syria recognize this, and they deserve our support. Quote: And in "undeveloped" capitalist countries? Quote: Based on the idea that bourgeois "democracy" is a democracy for the capitalist class. That "freedom to oppose" capitalist rule is only respected as far as it's not seen as a threat to power. The moment that such talk/action is seen as threatening, it is no longer tolerated by the state. Occupy Wall St is a good example of this (to some extent) Quote: There is no such thing as "completing a bourgeois revolution" at this stage. You're misusing that concept that applied mostly to the 19th century to understand a country that has been developing in the capitalist world for a long time now. Quote: And so was Western Europe when Marx argued that it was time for the workers to rise up against that same system. Quote: Is it even possible for it to be "completed" externally? Edit: I don't know how much more energy I have for this line by line reply. It really comes down to: what do you think the best way Western Communists can express solidarity with the Syrian working class? 20 Feb 2012, 14:52
Quote: Yes it is still repressive (it is a state after all) but it does contain a public sphere. That's why people are free to slag off Obama in public and he cannot mobilise the state to silence them. Quote: No, I've stated many times I believe it is in the early stages of capitalism just like the rest of the developing world. Economyically it is a capitalist country, however it does retain some remnants of feudalism in its political system. This is possible - look at Imperial Germany: capitalist economy, strong bourgeois control over the economy but still with an absolute monarchy and an influential aristocracy. They were overthrown in the German Revolution of 1919 (completion of the bourgeois revolution). Quote: I'm saying it's more democratic and freer than the Syrian state. I never said it was an ideal of a true democratic or free state. Quote: Creating bourgeois democracy and introducing the rule of law. What's so bad about that? Quote: Most likely it will result in increased levels of western investment into the Syrian economy. Quote: I am supporting a Syria which has bourgeois democracy. Independent India was/is still reliant on western imperialism and the fincancial and technological investments they make there. Western companies still reap billions in profits from cheap Indian labour. But it has resulted in huge economic gains for India. Quote: I'm pointg out how countries can develop economically despite being under the yoke of imperialism providing they have a bourgeois revolution. Once Japan completed its bourgeois revolution (introduced bourgeois democracy) it became even stronger. Many of the Asian Tigers are similar: they became even stronger once they introduced bourgeois democracy. Quote: Assad inherited power from his father. Many Baath Party members live in privilege because of their party membership. Quote: Iraq is not yet a functioning bourgeois democracy but it takes time. Incidently, the US was responsible for drafting the Japanese constitution after WW2 and completing the bourgeois revolution there. Do you oppose that? Would you rather it had stayed as Imperial Japan? I don't want the US to invade Syria to enforce regime change; I want to see the Syrians do it themselves from within (Assad is already proposing reforms along the lines of bourgeois democracy). Quote: Ok I got ahead of myself with a few examples there, but the point remains that government ownership of significant areas of the economy (especially in the developing world) tend to stifle rather than encourage growth. Capitalism is all about private ownership of the means of production. Places like Chin, Japan, South Korea, India, Asian Tigers, etc have seen the biggest growth once market reforms were introduced which allowed greater private ownership of the means of production. Assad was beginning to implement this in Syria even before the uprising. Quote: Neo-liberalism is just an aspect of capitalism. Capitalism causes crises by its very nature. Quote: Really? Tell me specifically how you are applying diamat to your analysis. Quote: Utter rubbish. Capitalist countries which have completed their democratic bourgeois revolutions are clearly better for it (Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, etc - unless of course you want to see a return to Imperial Japan and Germany, autocratic South Korea and Taiwan, etc). Many developing countries in Asia and Africa may provisionally have their bourgeoisie in power, but they still need to democratise their bourgeois political spheres. Quote: In the wrong context, yes. Your principles say to always and unconditionally support the working classes. My, Luxemburg's and Marx's dialectics say to support them when the situation is right. Quote: Empty phrase. What do you mean by "support"? Sounds like glorified cheerleading to me. Sure you can prefer something to happen which is what be both ultimately mean in this thread when we say support (because neither of us are actually doing anything to affect the situation there). I'm asking what can the people of developing countries actually do that could shake off imperialism. Quote: Many of them appear to be banned by the Syrian state. Bourgeois democracy would solve this but apparently you'd rather the Assad regime stayed in power Quote: We support them becoming developed capitalist countries. Quote: I don't disagree. I'm just saying having these present is preferrable to the Syrian levels of democracy and freedom to oppose (nil). They also provide a forum whereby people can debate alternatives to the status quo (like we are now in our bourgeois democracies). Quote: So you're saying it is impossible for Syria to have bourgeois democracy? Why? How can you say you are applying diamat when you reject stagist development? And Syria is not a developed capitalist country. It still has a lot of poverty and lack of development. Quote: Perhaps Marx underestimated how much further capitalism still had to go. Quote: Postwar Japan. Quote: By showing support for bourgeois democracy in Syria. That is an achievable goal which would improve the lives of Syrians. And no, I don't think that is what it comes down to. It comes down to why can Syria not have bourgeois democracy unlike so many other countries in the world? 20 Feb 2012, 16:49
Quote: Do you considering the over 5k arrests at the OWS protests to be political repression? Quote: It is indeed possible to have remnants of a former based existent in a present superstructure. However, Syria's government is a construct of the second half of the 20th century and thus does not trace its lineage to Feudal productive relations. In reality the superstructure of Syria is based on Arab socialism/Pan Arab nationalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_party How is the Baathist ideology Feudal? Quote: Your criteria are quite selective though. Quote: Syria does have a rule of law. Don't be silly. Quote: And if the second half of the 20th century should teach us anything: it's that this would be terrible for the Syrian people. Quote: Interesting that the proletariat of India have been organizing in revolutionary organizations to overthrow capitalism ever since. Also, the obvious example of the state of Karala provides a good demonstration of why Western investment isn't the best way forward for India. Quote: Japan industrialized not under the yoke of imperialism, however. Nor was its own subsequent prosperity the result of "democracy" (as that didn't exist) but rather its industrial capacity. The 20th century growth of Japan had to do with favorable trade/loans by the US and the West that Japan received due to the Cold War. Those circumstances were quite particular and that is not something the US does anymore. And on top of all of that, Japan (as I pointed out previously) focused on state intervention in the economy, not Neoliberal growth. The Asian Tigers of course have had difficulties with crisis, and South Korea is a good example of how "democracy" is a facade for the working class. But this would be its own thread and I don't want to get into it here. Quote: I'm not sure how this addresses my question. This does not demonstrate how Syria has a feudal base or superstructure whatsoever. The nature of the Baath Party is in no way similar to any ruling feudal political order. Quote: The US invasion of Japan and the US invasion of Iraq are wholly dissimilar. You have a way of bringing totally irrelevant examples into this conversation that is mostly just a red herring. The "it takes time" line is a bullshit excuse for imperialism, nothing else. You can't just implement "democracy" via invasion. You also seem to be under the assumption that that was the goal of the US invasion, which is laughable. Quote: This is simply false. China is the major counter-example to your entire point! Why would you appeal to something that demonstrate your entire point is false? India, likewise, still retains much state ownership as well as state direction of economic activity. Also privatization has been disastrous for the country. And in the USSR: it's been estimated that over 1 million deaths directly occurred as the result of privatization there (to no economic benefit for the people of Russia) Quote: Neoliberalism is an ideology and method of promoting privatization. There is nothing inherent in capitalism that leads to neoliberal ideology (see: Keynesian economics) Quote: By actually looking at the production process and how that relates to the superstructure/civil society of Syria. You on the other hand are looking at a legalistic conception of what counts as a "democracy" or even in terms of identifying an entire economic mode of production. You've also failed to look at the international players in the conflict in Syria, which is quite crucial. Quote: More liberal idealism. Quote: So do you think the Syrian working class does not need support right now? Quote: Well the "anti-war" movement has many methods of opposing these sorts of interventions. The people of developing countries can take an independent development path: form a counter-hegemonic force as we can see in places like Latin America, and even to an extent: this is what Syria as a country was founded as. Another good example of an effort to do this was the Warsaw Pact. Quote: The Communist Party actually is part of government. And I would rather Assad stay in power if the alternative is US rule in Syria, yes. Is that what I prefer overall? No, of course not. When a nation is the target of imperialist aggression, the main goal of revolutionaries in the country perpetuating that aggression is to work to thwart that very aggression. Quote: Empty phrase. Quote: More liberal notions of what bourgeois democracy is. Why do you value the ability to "debate alternatives" over the ability for people to actually make those alternatives a reality? Quote: I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that your conception of what counts as a "complete" bourgeois democracy is mostly an empty phrase which is a vulgarization of Marx. Having a lot of poverty is a characteristic of all capitalist countries, "developed" or not. Quote: He was quite clear about defining the system as it was. He didn't, however, argue that capitalism should "run its course" before the workers decided it was time to take power. He argued, instead, that capitalism contains within it the very contradictions that lead to working class desire to revolt. And we saw those revolts for almost as long as capitalism has been around. Marx's criticism of the Paris Commune wasn't that "capitalism hadn't developed enough" but rather was a criticism of how the workers went about attempting to seize power. The seizure of power by the working class at that stage (and at that time, using your criteria, France would certainly not be considered a "fully developed" capitalist country) was not something he was questioning. Quote: So a place under military occupation right after being nuked twice is your shining example of a fully developed capitalist country? I sure hope this isn't the message you want the Syrian people to hear. Quote: What you really mean, however, is "why isn't Syria Westernized" which is not the same thing as a fully developed bourgeois system. You seem unclear about what you even mean by bourgeois democracy. You focus on formal legal "rights" and norms "protected" by places like the United States, yet you accuse others of not applying a materialist analysis. Again, I'm done with this back and forth line by line thing. 20 Feb 2012, 18:43
Quote: Obviously Quote: It's the fact power and status that the party elite appears to correspond with a caste-based system. Assad inherited his power. I never said it was proper feudalism, merely remnants of it that need stamping out. Quote: But the government doesn't appear to be subject to it. Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ ... 80%93Japan) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansei_Treaties Quote: It is a facade but it is better than the autocracy that went before it. Quote: No, you said that Iraq was not a bourgeois revolution, it was a US-enforced regime change. I was merely pointing out that post-war Japan was not a revolution but a US-enforced regime change and that has become a much better place to live than Imperial Japan, has it not? Quote: According to this logic you would have been clamouring for the restoration of Tsarist rule in 1918 because in the years immediately following the Russian Revolution things were a lot worse than they were prior to 1917. The Russian Revolution took time, I expect the regime change in Iraq to take time. Quote: China only really started growing after Deng's market-based reforms. Yes the state still owns lots of industries there but there is now a huge privately-owned area of the economy. Foreign investors now make huge private investments in China. India too has made great advances since its liberalisation of the economy. Quote: No it hasn't, it's one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It's running headlong through its industrial revolution. Quote: I know. You were merely implying that neoliberalism causes crises. I was pointing out that crises are something inherent to capitalism itself, not neo-liberalism. Quote: Lol vague and unspecific. How are you analysing it since you clearly think histomat is no longer relevant. Quote: Bourgeois democracy is similar to what we have in the west. It's better than what they have in Syria. Where would you rather live, USA or Syria? And how am I confusing the economic mode of production? I've said many times that it is capitalist. Quote: So you do think Japan today is no better than Imperial Japan? You do think South Korea today is no better than South Korea prior to 1987? Taiwan today is no better than under Chinag Kai Shek's military rule? That is what you are implying if you dismiss these improvements as "liberal idealism". Quote: Yes, in establishing a bourgeois democracy. Quote: No they can't! They're subjugated by capital! Even prior to the uprising Assad was on the verge of making market reforms. He realised this is the only way to increase levels of development. Quote: And yet the Syrian Democratic People's Party, Communist Labour Party, Antiglobalization Activists in Syria, Arab Communist Party are all banned. Quote: Is this you admitting you think the Syrian state is better than bourgeois democracy? Quote: Agreed. But when the people of a country are trying to bring their government to account and to install bourgeois democracy, we should support that too, just as we supported the overthrow of Mubarak. Quote: Well in Syria people can't do either of those things. And yet you seem to think that is preferrable to bourgeois democracy. Quote: You asked if a democratic bourgeois revolution can be completed via external force. I pointed to the example of post war Japan which essentially had bourgeois democratic measures introduced by the US. Ideally, I would like the Syrians themselves to force this change and not have any western intervention. Quote: No I don't mean this at all. I have never mentioned "westernisation" in this thread and I won't. What the hell does it even mean anyway? Quote: Not all bourgeois democracies are identical. The British system is different from the French system which is different from the US system, etc. But they have in common the fact that governments can be taken to account through legitimate channels (imagine trying to sue the government in Syria!) and people can elect the bourgeoisie to rule over them as opposed to having the bourgeoisie rule over them through sheer use of force. 20 Feb 2012, 23:50
You oppose capitalism forming in any other way unless it is backed by the US and its allies, which is synonymous with westernization. You leave little to the imagination in your posts and then get upset when people call you out on it. I just dont understand how you can claim that a western backed elite is more likely to reinvest profits and grow the economy when all evidence points to smaller rates of repatriation and the elites do not show any marked interest in moving toward more capitalism save for a few special cases. Have you watched the James Bond movie Casino Royale? There is a scence where the bolivian strong man refuses to accept the terms of the new water company, but when presented with the choice of political power or economic power, the comprador elites will always choose political power as insofar as their interests are concerned it doesnt really matter to them if the country industrializes. There is a good book, [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=sovietempire&path=subst/home/home.html/Imperialism-Corruption-Democracies-Radical-Perspectives/dp/0822336979[/url] which explores the myth of liberalism in the peripheral nations. I highly recommend it.
"The present is a time of struggle; the future is ours."
21 Feb 2012, 17:16
gRed Britain, the common theme in your replies is that you have a misunderstanding of what terms like "feudalism" and "bourgeois democracy" mean. For example, Assad inheriting power from his father via the Baath Party is not in any way an example of "leftover feudalism." Yet you claim that this simple fact demonstrates that the entire Syrian production process still has feudal elements, and can't point out a single one other than the political transfer of power of one position! And to add to that: the Syrian state, as it exists, is a construct of the 20th century: not something that has continuity with the Ottoman Empire.
Your desire to have the developing world Westernize amounts to you being an (or coming off as) an apologist for imperialism. I don't know how else to look at it, since you seem quite ambiguous about your stance on imperialism here. You seem to be "applying Marxism" in a way that lead to the advent of the term "vulgar Marxism" Like I said, I'm not going to do a line by line, but this is the most telling part of your post: Quote: This demonstrates your complete inability to understand what's going on in Syria. You see this through the lens of bourgeois media. To you (and the narrative fed to us all through that media) is of "people simply wanting freedom against an oppressive nation!" which completley ignores the class, ideological, and ethnic tension aspects of this uprising. For example, I doubt you have much "analysis" about the nature of the SNC or the NCC in Syria at all. I don't like to constantly refer to my own organization's publication but I think this article could actually help you understand it a little more. Syria's Uprising in Context 21 Feb 2012, 21:13
Quote: And again, what is westernisation? Quote: I'm saying that most developing countries (barring perhaps Cuba, China, Laos and Vietnam and maybe North Korea) should move to become bourgeois democracies. We all live in bourgeois democracies and while we know they are not perfect and the state still represses us, we know they are much better states to live under than the states in Syria, Saudi Arabia, D R Congo, Iran, etc. I am saying that a move to bourgeois democracy constitutes socioeconomic progress. Whilst such moves are likely going to be supported by western imperialism, that doesn't mean they are bad for the people who live there. It is obvious that places like Taiwan and South Korea today are better than when they were autocratic dictatorships. Quote: No, I said the Syrian economy is capitalist. I merely pointed this out as an aspect of feudalism. Anyway, regardless of whether we consider this to be "feudal" or not, it is exemplary of the nepotism, cronyism and corruption that exists within the Syrian state which should be replaced with democratic elections and accountable government. Quote: What is westernisation? What do you mean by that? If you mean bourgeois democracy, that is not inherently western. If you believe it is inapplicable outside the west then I don't know what sort of Marxist you are. Communism is supposed to be globally applicable and if bourgeois democracy cannot be applied the why should communism? Quote: I realise the problems imperialism causes both in the imperialist countries and the subordinate countries. I also realise that it is something that we, as residents of the imperialist countries, should fight against. When I read Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism I noticed that his analysis of how the imperialist countries divide the world into actual colonies is obviously no longer applicable. I also noticed how former colonies like India have advanced enourmously since formal independence despite remaining under the capitalist system both now and under the British Raj. Of course, one doesn't have to look far to see that imperialism never actually left India. British and other businesses still reap huge profits on the back of cheap India labour. Yet India itself is growing at an unprecedented level. Why would India want to overthrow western imperialism when it is providing them with employment, technology and development? Thus I feel the fight against imperialism should focus on the domestic front rather than abroad. Abroad, imperialism seems far too resiliant. I mean, during the 20th century monopoly capitalism lost all its colonies and suffered 1/3 of the world forming a socialist bloc against it, and yet it still remains alive and well. I also feel that, in terms of histomat, the progressive role capitalism has to play should not be neglected. When we look at China, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, et al, we see they have made huge economic advances under increasingly capitalist systems. It is well documented that China only really took off economically after Deng's reforms. Same with India since 1991 and Vietnam with Doi Moi. We saw what capitalism did to socioeconomic progress in the west during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, now we are witnessing its progressive attributes in most of the developing world. The fact is that while capitalism in the developed west suffers under the "global" economic downturn, capitalism in the developing world is actually doing fine. Finally, I feel that bourgeois democracy represents a significant level of socioeconomic and historical materialistic progress over autocracy. Bourgeois democracies have become synonymous with developed capitalism and I feel they provide a better standard of living in terms of individual freedoms (yes I know people aren't truly "free" in bourgeois democracies but they have more freedoms than under autocracy). I also think that they provide the grounds for increased development as government accountability provides public channels with which to attack corruption, etc. Finally, they do contain an inherent contradiction of allowing people to access anti-capitalist material. Combine this with the increased levels of education in developed countries and you have a proletariat with a great potential to be educated on Marxism and socialism, etc. On the other hand, when people are not sufficiently educated to envisage what replaces their oppressors and their system (e.g. peasant rebellion), they simply replace one depsot with another. This is not a revolution and is not progress. Quote: How much do any of us truly know about the Syrian opposition? I never for a moment considered them all to be a unified and homogenous group and I don't doubt there is a worryingly large Islamist presence. In every revolution there are players with different agendas and one usually trumps all the others. However, if we consider these uprisings within the context of an 'Arab Spring', what reason should we have to differentiate the rebels in Syria from the rebels in Egypt? The Arab Spring appears to be a movement through many Arab countries to overthrow despotic autocrats and supposedly replace them with democratically elected governments (along the lines of bourgeois democracy). Now I know that some might say "the 'Arab Spring' is a myth constructed by the imperialist bourgeois media/al Jazeera etc". Yes, this could well be the case BUT the rebels in the various countries will be fed this line too so they will see themselves as part of an Arab Spring regardless of whether they actually are or not. Thus why should we think the goals of the Egyptian rebels (whom we supported) should be significantly different from those of the Syrian rebels (whom we are told to oppose)? I don't think you can say it is a coincidence that all these rebellions/revolutions have occurred at the same time and yet they are each led by opposing ideologies. Rebellions like this tend to inspire each other, both in action and ideology. Quote: It's a good article, but as I said the first time, why are they not advocating support for the National Coordinating Body for Democratic Change in Syria? Left-wing, secular, prepared to talk with Assad, oppose foreign intervention. Way more progressive than Assad's regime and yet they want to resist US interferance. 22 Feb 2012, 23:20
Marie Colvin has been killed by Syrian Army. A journalist who loses an eye (back in 2001 by government forces at Sri Lanka) and continues reporting on the front-front lines had balls of steel until the end. "I think the reports of my survival may be exaggerated"; her last update on web.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4145632/Sunday-Times-reporter-Marie-Colvin-is-killed-in-Syria.html 23 Feb 2012, 02:37
Yes, you have consistently said that as a law instead of a theory. The reason Kurt and I consistently criticize this assertion is that it is part of mainstream media mythology and aside from a few key examples, the theory does not hold much water. If it were true that the socioeconomic gain of western bourgeois liberal democracy or whatever you want to call it was a reality then why is the opposition to it so great from both a national bourgeoisie as well as other classes in society?
Simply dropping the names of Congo, Iran, and Saudi Arabia is not helpful to analysis here. Each of those countries is vastly different and its hard to make common assertions regarding all of them. But what I find most troubling here is your assumption that a democracy imposed in Congo will resemble one in England in any way. This just smacks of neo-colonialism, creating a copy of a western state somewhere else in the world, for the ostensible benefit of those who live there. Quote: The root problem here is your lack of optimism. We can throw statistics back and forth all day, but the distinguishing mark between us is how we view the possibility of a revolution. You consider it impossible due to the power of imperialism, so if we work with it, the dividends will pay off. But this conflict will always be present. No matter the amount of arms the US dumps in Colombia, the FARC and other insurgent groups will continue to operate. We could consider other examples as well, but the point is the conflict nature here is essential, so we can't simply declare imperialism is strong, and it benefits us in certain ways so we might as well live with it. I'm sure some have reasoned that, but when you travel in developing countries, even semi-peripheral countries like Panama, or Chile, and compare it to Cuba, which arguably is much poorer, I don't think there is a clear cut superiority enjoyed by these western-backed countries. The system itself in working with imperialism is not capable of stamping out all opposition. The many opponents of globalization, and American imperialism on the right and the left have identified the unsustainable nature of the way American imperialism functions and the resistance it generates. There will always be resistance, therefore the goal of revolutionaries should be to work with the oppressed, not the oppressors. Lets consider French colonialism in Senegal. I find the works of Ousmane Sembene in God's bits of wood very illuminating on how this mentality works. People should be grateful to colonialists for all they did. That is the attitude which they represent. They did bring technology in the form of railroads, improved mining equipment, and so on. Yet, would you have sided with the French colonialists? I'm assuming not. Colonialism still exists, which leads me to my next point, I don't really buy this idea that imperialism is somehow weakened. I would recommend first, as an addendum to Lenin's work which you mentioned, Kwame Nkrumah's Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Monthly Review has a number of works examining Lenin's work as it applies to the contemporary system, http://monthlyreview.org/2011/04/01/monopoly-and-competition-in-twenty-first-century-capitalism Finally, in film form there is La Hora de Los Hornos, which can be watched for free online and it is an excellent film. Now, as you mention India I would like to revisit your claim that a bourgeois western democracy would prevent corruption and nepotism, guarantee transparent elections, and overall bolster economic growth. Without delving into figures here, lets just consider the Commonwealth games. What kind of conclusion can we draw from that? I have heard great things about India's economic growth really only from The Economist, everywhere else seems to be more focused on the rampant corruption and serious problems facing India, questioning whether it can really measure up to China in the long run. While The Economist believes that to be true, the general perception I've come across is that India faces serious problems with corruption that hinder economic development amongst other problems. We all know the fallacy of economic growth, as in, countries like Equatorial Guinea enjoy enormous economic growth yet we need to distinguish here between economic development and economic growth and can we specifically say, as a law, that the specific system you describe is uniquely capable of economic development. Its not the fact that you claim it is capable, but that is exclusively able to do so where any other system cannot. This is why the debate we are having here has not progressed very far. Quote: definition of orientalism, you ascribe a lower intelligence to the masses of other countries therefore claiming they are incapable of revolution. To claim all revolutions simply replace one despot with another is simplistic and rings of Reagan's assessment that the American revolution was the only true one. Thats such an absolute stance, that progress cannot result from a revolution that does not fit within your narrowly defined parameters that interestingly enough mirror the exact same requirements BBC would use. When you say 'more freedom' you regard certain freedoms like being able to write critical information of the government as a cornerstone to your version of freedom. I recommend you try to do that in any of these western liberal democracies forming in the developing world. They are just as reactionary and brutal as the dictatorships, as Kurt pointed out with Gowans article on Syria, he does a good job on other cases such as comparing Zimbabwe and Ethiopia. You bringing up DR Congo is interesting to note as well. Technically it is supposed to be a model democracy, the US has not hesitated to back Kabila, and has been even more willing to work with Musveni and Kagame. They are not democrats, and they do not bring any kind of freedom to those states. Finally on your bit about Syria resembling Egypt, undoubtedly many do see it this way, on the other hand many people are more likely to support democratic reforms as opposed to outright revolution. Seeing the chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it seems natural enough people would not want the same kind of instability. "The present is a time of struggle; the future is ours."
23 Feb 2012, 17:48
gRed Britain wrote: It's quite incredible that you're unfamiliar with this term. This could be a good starting place for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westernization Quote: Your random sampling of other countries is essentially nonsensical here. Take Saudi Arabia: it remains the way it is because it is inherently tied in with the international capitalist order. The "western democracies" benefit from the current regime in Saudi Arabia and its ability to rule over its people. Your entire conception of "moving towards bourgeois democracy" completely fails to account what those countries are moving from. This is an important point your missing because your conception of the "progress" that would be made seems to be based on the Marxist notion of stages from feudalism to capitalism where he described capitalism playing a progressive role in history. This schema laid out by Marx has little to do with what we're talking about here though. Quote: Well you pointed out something that is incorrect, what you pointed out is not an aspect of feudalism. The rest of what you're saying has little to do with a materialist analysis and completley lacks a class analysis of course. This is based on liberal humanism. Quote: I believe both of these things are addressed above (particularly your misunderstanding of Marx's explanation of the stages of modes of production) Quote: This seems like a defense of imperialism to me, and kind of speaks for itself. You're also talking out of two sides of your mouth here: "of course we should oppose imperialism!" but at the same time you emphasize the "progressive role" it plays, all of this as we're talking about a country that is clearly the current target of imperialism. Thus the implicit conclusion you're drawing is that Syria being said target is unproblematic. And of course, more of your misunderstanding of what Marx and others meant when they talked about the "progressive role" capitalism played. Quote: Why is there a difference between Syria and Egypt's rebels? It's not really that hard to figure out actually, Egypt's rebels had quite a clear opposition to US interference with their country, Syria, on the other hand, has elements of the rebellion that are seeking to capitulate to the West. Quote: And that faction does not support building a bourgeois democracy like you are desiring.
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||||
Forum Index » Discussion » Current Events » Why did Russia block the UN resolution on Syria? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ][ Next ]
[ Top ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
