Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Reflecting on Conflict in Syria

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 80
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Aug 2011, 21:51
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 04 Jan 2013, 20:38
Well said Blasroca !

The Western Imperialists are getting their wishes slowly but surely- http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-goin ... -iran/5166

The over-reaction by the Syrian army to protesters must be seen in the context of the region as a whole, where suppression of demonstrations is expected,see KSA,Bahrain,etc.I wonder how the Uk government would have reacted if snipers were firing at our soldiers. And foriegn fighters as well as massive help to destabilize the UK was pouring in from the surrounding un-democratic countries and enemy empire.
Reforms toward democracy were being made by ASsad,which started out as an end of the 40 year state of emergency and corruption,so he lifted the SofE and made continuous changes in the right direction but as the OP said,some people wanted blood.
The NATO imperialists see an opportunity to topple a government who wont be subservient to them and they sieze it !
How many examples have there been ?it must be 60 or something at the least since the end of WW2 and this is another.

Still closing in on Mother Russia.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 05 Jan 2013, 13:05
I don't have any more respect for the FSA and related lapdogs of imperialism then I have for the nazi collaborators during World War II or for the groups of indigenous soldiers who willingly served in the colonial armies to oppress their own people. The Syrian rebels are reactionary and imperialist traitors, nothing more. Each and every left-wing and progressive party and movement has sided with the Syrian government in this civil war. That alone says enough.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 417
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2012, 01:18
Komsomol
Post 14 Jan 2013, 12:58
Quote:
which is supported by the genuine opposition based in the workers and peoples movement

Source.

Quote:
will only serve the imperialists and the anti-people growing bourgeois in Syria and create a new capitalist pro-imperialist regime which will abandon their support to the cause of the Palestinian movement and other peoples and liberation movements and for surely destroy the workers and peoples movement in Syria.

The Baath regime is one of the major causes of the Palestine tragedy, as it uses refugees and the movement for its own imperialist ends. WHat is more, the FSA is fully supporting Palestine and is in conflict with Israel. It is also defending the refugee camp in Damascus from the Shabiha bandits. It's the ASSad donkeys PFLP-GC that dragged the camp into war through provocation; now they have been flushed, and the FSA is the sole force to defend the camp.

Quote:
Still closing in on Mother Russia.

Father Putin will appreciate this.

Quote:
Each and every left-wing and progressive party and movement has sided with the Syrian government in this civil war.

Aw hellz naw.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Jan 2013, 21:52
Quote:
The Baath regime is one of the major causes of the Palestine tragedy, as it uses refugees and the movement for its own imperialist ends. WHat is more, the FSA is fully supporting Palestine and is in conflict with Israel.

Haha. That's why they are are funded by Israel's buddies in the Gulf.
FSA are locusts bred in Tel Aviv and Riyad kitchens and other nasty places.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Jan 2013, 10:16
[img]Aw%20hellz%20naw.[/img]

As a manner of fact: yes. The National Progressive Front, including both Communist parties (revisionist and anti-revisionist) support the national sovereignty of Syria (ie the side of the Ba'ath Party in the civil war).
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1391
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 25 Jan 2013, 16:10
Speaking from the Ukraine I can say the Ukrainian communist party is in full support of the regime. These Islamic fundamentalists are a plague upon the earth and the Assad regime with all their faults is a much better alternative to any Islamic Sharia ruled country. Like I said in another thread that even though most of the rebels are not radical Muslims the most powerful factions in terms of outside funding and training are the radical terrorist groups. The whole world knows that the FSA have radical Islamic elements among them and that is why that in two years of war the west are still reluctant to intervene directly. Sure they supply weapons and such but that's just business. War after all has always been big business for capitalist giants. Saudi Arabia and Qatar all profit by sending ignorant uneducated brainwashed religious fanatics to the front line who think they're doing god's work. Either way Syria is finished in my opinion and the profiteers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Image


The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4458
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 25 Jan 2013, 20:08
I would go even further than some here to say that the Syrian Ba'athist regime is not only better than the rebels'; it is in general a positive and progressive force regionally. Compared with that of the US, Soviet foreign policy was not so ideologically opportunistic in its relations with third countries, and Syria was at the heart of Soviet efforts in the Middle East precisely because its system was deemed politically and socioeconomically progressive. Certainly in the last decades certain retrogressive processes have occurred, in large part due to the lack of a superpower opposed to capitalism and imperialism, but in general many progressive elements remain, and the potential still exists for further improvement, so long as the regime is able to survive. Otherwise Islamic fundamentalism will engulf the country and guarantee the disintegration of virtually all the achievements made by secular left nationalist forces.
"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
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5155
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 26 Jan 2013, 18:55
Quote:
Soviet foreign policy was not so ideologically opportunistic in its relations with third countries




Soviet foreign policy is full of zig zags and opportunistic adventures, on top of a huge arms trade practice and generous subsidies to prop up puppet buffer states. They way they embraced 'progressive' nationalism or peaceful co-existence is just reconciling ideology that doesn't apply to it, with (bourgeois) state interests.

The USSR was easily as opportunist as the US (it was imperialist after all), if not more as the state's policies could be morphed to serve anybody in command of it, along with marxism. From the original revolutionaries, to stalin, khruschev, brezhnev, and finally gorby.

It's funny how you guys are basically picking up dead policies formed over time to serve the interests of a state and bureaucratic elite that no longer exists after dismantling itself. It's like ideological cosplay from the point of view of reaction in the USSR.

Maybe once you guys stop roleplaying soviet statesman you'll realize how irrelevant 'progressiveness' and 'anti-imperialism' is, and how your relationship to the revolution isn't even useful idiot, its nearly counter revolutionary.

This thread and all other threads on syria prove my point.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Jan 2013, 19:35
Quote:
Maybe once you guys stop roleplaying soviet statesman you'll realize how irrelevant 'progressiveness' and 'anti-imperialism' is, and how your relationship to the revolution isn't even useful idiot, its nearly counter revolutionary.

Maybe, what's relevant is that you don't have bearded murderers running amok in Syria. It's that simple to me.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5155
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 26 Jan 2013, 19:58
If you wanna play world police and regulate the balance of power that's fine, it's nothing new. Just don't pretend it's revolutionary or in the interest of the revolutionary proletariat.

The communists already accept world capitalism and imperialism represents an epoch of war, suffering, and national rivalry. That's why we want to end it, not try to quantify which faction of the bourgeoisie is 'better'. That was only relevant to the soviet state and its relation to other states, and whether you think it was socialist or not it's gone, and there are no more third world nationalists looking to join your (imperialist) 'side'.

It's strange, in the third period these baathists would be considered at least social fascists.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Jan 2013, 20:19
Quote:
If you wanna play world police and regulate the balance of power that's fine, it's nothing new. Just don't pretend it's revolutionary or in the interest of the revolutionary proletariat.

What balance of power? What matters is that the Syrian people can live freely without bearded murderers imposing their barbarity upon them.
And yes, that's very much in the interest of the Syrian people and all freedom-loving people in the world.
Assad represents the secular and democratic national bourgeoisie, the jihadists represent the interests of the ultra-reactionary Arab states, jihadism, terrorism and medieval savagery.

Quote:
It's strange, in the third period these baathists would be considered at least social fascists.

Perhaps. But what does it matter now? Assad is better than the islamo-fascists.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 26 Jan 2013, 21:14
Wow... I fully agree with Loz. And that doesn't happen often.

Quote:
Maybe once you guys stop roleplaying soviet statesman you'll realize how irrelevant 'progressiveness' and 'anti-imperialism' is, and how your relationship to the revolution isn't even useful idiot, its nearly counter revolutionary.

You can't get any more counter revolutionary than when you claim anti-imperialism is irrelevant.

It's funny how all stances supporting "the progressive role of imperialism" actually come from people living in imperialist countries...


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5155
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 26 Jan 2013, 21:18
Loz wrote:
What balance of power?


You and others are proposing communists do something about the conditions of bourgeois politics nationally and internationally by favoring a contender.

Quote:
What matters is that the Syrian people can live freely without bearded murderers imposing their barbarity upon them.


Who gives a shit about 'the people', we are not populists. What you mean by 'the people' is merely the national bourgeoisie.

The working class have no interest in whatever state that comes out of this struggle. Both sides represent factions of the ruling class. Both are nationalists.

Obviously as a marxist you're confused on 'what matters'.

Quote:
Assad represents the secular and democratic national bourgeoisie, the jihadists represent the interests of the ultra-reactionary Arab states, jihadism, terrorism and medieval savagery.


There is nothing democratic, or progressive for that matter, about assad's state. All capitalist states have the same relationship to the working class, they are exploitive, warmongering barbarians using men with guns to oppress us. In our time, it is socialism or barbarism. You are proposing the revolutionaries use their time and resources cheerleading some sort of lesser barbarian.

Not to mention, you shouldn't even bother trying to quantify such.

Quote:
Perhaps. But what does it matter now? Assad is better than the islamo-fascists.


If you're so concerned about the affairs of x bourgeois state, by all means go and join them somehow. Just don't bring up communism, claim you're a marxist, or accuse communists of sectarianism or some BS when they agitate workers against the state you're working in.

What you're arguing for is basically a mangled popular front, with no communist or workers really present and replacing liberals with fascists to the left of others. I suppose it really is true stalinism bases itself on the demoralization and degeneration of the revolution, they hardly push it at all now, and do so in collaboration (or rather subjugation, like with CCP and the KMT) with reactionaries. All while talking about the 'freedom' of 'x national people'.

Quote:
You can't get any more counter revolutionary than when you claim anti-imperialism is irrelevant.


What you guys mean by 'anti-imperialism' is merely subordinating the revolution in favor of an alliance with the national bourgeoisie, or a faction of it. Marxists have already concluded and proved in 1917 that capitalism in no longer progressive, the bourgeoisie is no longer revolutionary or embodies working class interests.

I don't know how I can be counter-revolutionary, when I seem to be the one here proposing revolution as a solution to the issues.

Quote:
It's funny how all stances supporting "the progressive role of imperialism" actually come from people living in imperialist countries...


I don't have any stance supporting 'progressive imperialism', as I have stated in the past capitalism is not progressive, imperialism is represents that fact. It's only gred britain that has revived the idea of a progressive bourgeoisie, and talked about 'progressive imperialism'.

But speaking of stances supporting imperialism, you are rather nationalist and even support argentina taking the falklands. It's amazing, a communist that supports a notion of irredentism with origins in fascism's desperate attempt to distract the people.

That all fits in well with stalinism, left nationalism, and all that garbage. Shaping the capitalist world to your preference, using the blood and resources of revolutionary workers.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Jan 2013, 21:45
Quote:
You and others are proposing communists do something about the conditions of bourgeois politics nationally and internationally by favoring a contender.

Yeah, that's what communists have been doing since the 19th century. Lajos Kossuth and Franz Jozef ( and so on and so forth ) were "both contenders" in 1848 in Hungary, and it was all about the conditions of bourgeois politics.

Quote:
Who gives a shit about 'the people', we are not populists. What you mean by 'the people' is merely the national bourgeoisie.

By people i mean all classes. It's not the national bourgeoisie that will be put to machettes.

Quote:
The working class have no interest in whatever state that comes out of this struggle. Both sides represent factions of the ruling class. Both are nationalists.

That's like saying the working class has no interest in whether we live in a fascist or a democratic bourgeois state. People of Syria don't need your proclamations about what their interests are when there are bearded murderers preparing for slaughter a few miles away from them.

Quote:
Obviously as a marxist you're confused on 'what matters'.

No i'm not. I'm talking from the centuries-long Marxist experience and praxis, starting from the beginning.

Quote:
All capitalist states have the same relationship to the working class, they are exploitive, warmongering barbarians using men with guns to oppress us.

That's absurd. Sweden and Colombia have the same relationship to the working class? Then why aren't there death squads in Sweden? Why aren't Swedes being jailed for free speech like the Chinese are?
The struggle for democracy has been an integral part of any Marxism.

Quote:
You are proposing the revolutionaries use their time and resources cheerleading some sort of lesser barbarian.

Yes, lest they don't want to be slaughtered and enslaved.

Quote:
If you're so concerned about the affairs of x bourgeois state, by all means go and join them somehow. Just don't bring up communism, claim you're a marxist, or accuse communists of sectarianism or some BS when they agitate workers against the state you're working in.

Not even the Anarchists agitated anyone against the Spanish state during the Civil War. Because they were well aware of what would happen to them if the fascists won.

Quote:
All while talking about the 'freedom' of 'x national people'.

I see no issue with that popular slogan.
Neither did Marx or Engels or Lenin or whoever.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 27 Jan 2013, 01:02
Conscript wrote:
I don't know how I can be counter-revolutionary, when I seem to be the one here proposing revolution as a solution to the issues.

Yeah... a revolution without the material or political conditions for it. Lenin wrote about that... and called it an infantile disorder.

Conscript wrote:
But speaking of stances supporting imperialism, you are rather nationalist and even support argentina taking the falklands. It's amazing, a communist that supports a notion of irredentism with origins in fascism's desperate attempt to distract the people.

Origins in fascism??? So you think fascism existed in 1833??? very interesting...

Conscript wrote:
That all fits in well with stalinism, left nationalism, and all that garbage. Shaping the capitalist world to your preference, using the blood and resources of revolutionary workers.

Call it what you like. It's still much closer to reality where to operate politically, rather than a utopian "ready for revolution" world.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 27 Jan 2013, 12:06
Quote:
Who gives a shit about 'the people', we are not populists.


I'd like to know how you see "Marxism" without regard for the People. That would be one strange ideology.

Quote:
The working class have no interest in whatever state that comes out of this struggle. Both sides represent factions of the ruling class. Both are nationalists.

Obviously as a marxist you're confused on 'what matters'.


You have no right to complain about how "Marxist" other are, seeing as how you're an extreme idealist and utoptian. The very first form of infantile disorders of the Communist movement. A sort of pseudo-revolutionary ideal that even Marx himself combatted.

Quote:
If you're so concerned about the affairs of x bourgeois state, by all means go and join them somehow. Just don't bring up communism, claim you're a marxist, or accuse communists of sectarianism or some BS when they agitate workers against the state you're working in.


Yes, it would be so much better if Communists joined up with Al Qaeda in Syria to overthrow the government that the Syrian Communist Party is a member of...


Quote:
What you guys mean by 'anti-imperialism' is merely subordinating the revolution in favor of an alliance with the national bourgeoisie, or a faction of it. Marxists have already concluded and proved in 1917 that capitalism in no longer progressive, the bourgeoisie is no longer revolutionary or embodies working class interests.


Yes, it is obvious that you have no knowledge of anything that happened after 1917 in the history of the world and the Marxist movement. I figured that out already.

Quote:
I don't have any stance supporting 'progressive imperialism', as I have stated in the past capitalism is not progressive, imperialism is represents that fact. It's only gred britain that has revived the idea of a progressive bourgeoisie, and talked about 'progressive imperialism'.


You are essentially supporting imperialism with your claim that we shouldn't combat it or overthrow it. That's the most useful sort of agent imperialism can ever have. Prime example being Trotsky.

Quote:
That all fits in well with stalinism, left nationalism, and all that garbage. Shaping the capitalist world to your preference, using the blood and resources of revolutionary workers.


I have yet to meet the first revolutionary who doesn't want to "shape the world according to his preference". If you don't want that, then you're a conformist. Nothing more.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 417
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2012, 01:18
Komsomol
Post 30 Jan 2013, 12:04
Quote:
As a manner of fact: yes. The National Progressive Front, including both Communist parties (revisionist and anti-revisionist) support the national sovereignty of Syria (ie the side of the Ba'ath Party in the civil war).

These bourgeois scum/stalinists are not leftist or progressive. They have exploited and parasitised on the Syrian proletariat for decades; time to pay up. Let them be slaughtered!
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1391
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 30 Jan 2013, 13:40
sans-culotte wrote:
These bourgeois scum/stalinists are not leftist or progressive. They have exploited and parasitised on the Syrian proletariat for decades; time to pay up. Let them be slaughtered!


You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? I have been to Syria. I have hundreds of Syrian friends who studied with me in medical school in the Ukraine as well as in Lebanon and we would always quarrel about their president and their regime not because they were against the regime but because I was. As I have a Lebanese Maronite Christian background I lived for 10 long years under Syrian occupation in Lebanon. I used to believe that they were a tyrannical occupational force that subjugated Lebanese society. In the ten years under their occupation never was there any clashes between different ethnic or religious groups and in that whole time I remember there was only one murder. Since they left Lebanon has had more political assassinations than all other Arab countries combined. Terrorist bombings as well as ethnic/religious fighting and clashes take place all the time and in cities like Tripoli almost on a daily bases; and when I say clashes I'm talking about the use of mortars, RPG rocket launchers, booby trapped car bombs and obviously small arms as well. I hardly ever go back to Lebanon because of the fear of getting blown up by a car bomb or something while having a beer at the beach or in a club. Some of my Syrian doctor colleagues can't go back to Syria with their wives and children ever since they graduated because of the war and some have returned with the guarantee of getting good medical work only do get killed or displaced or homeless and all for what? Before the onset of the war Syria was by Arab standards a very good functioning country. Even Palestinian refugees have had it better there than in any other Arab country. I have Palestinian friends who live in Syria with up to seven children and all live a very comfortable life. You say they should be slaughtered by religious wackos why? Sure there was corruption and bureaucracy under the regime but is that a reason to support fundamentalists? Besides in which country is there no corruption? You talk of Syria as if it were some abstract idea in which you choose a workers revolution instead of siding with either the state or the terrorists. Marx said that revolution comes when the time is right according to the political and economical situation of the moment and that a communist must be pragmatic and able to play the political game when necessary. A workers revolution is no option now in Syria and we must be in full support of the regime lest we be overwhelmed by another religious run wacko state or at worst total civil war in which every religious group fights for themselves thus further destabilizing the entire region . You either are really misinformed of the Syrian dilemma or are yourself a supporter of Islamic fundamentalism just like that freak in your avatar. Before this all started Syrian people had pride and dignity in their nation. They were the only bordering Arab country who never bowed down to the Zionist presence next door. They were a secular state where all lived peacefully side by side. You prefer them to become another Iraq, Libya, or even another Saudi Arabia? My Syrian Sunni friends who were in support of the demonstrations at the beginning of the uprisings themselves now tell me that it would have been better had the Arab Spring never happened at all. Since then things have gone from functioning Arab states to total chaos and in not a single country has the Arab spring improved things but only brought violence and bloodshed. So go ahead and support your fruitcake "Allah U Akbar" friends and we'll see how peacefully, democratically, and progressively they'll run the country if they win.
Image


The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 30 Jan 2013, 17:07
Quote:
Let them be slaughtered!

In your wet dreams. Seems your murdering comrades in Syria bit more than they could chew.
That vermin will soon be removed from Syria.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4458
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 30 Jan 2013, 19:46
Thank you for your passionate and informed appeal for sanity, Yeqon. I'm very sorry that this sectarian violence which so many of us think about so abstractly has affected you and those close to you in such serious ways. If only ordinary people in Western countries were given access to opinions like yours; perhaps then pressure on policymakers promoting religiously motivated civil wars would grow.
"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
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.