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

Do you support Bachar al-Assad (2)

POST REPLY

Do you support Bachar al-Assad ?

Yes
46
69%
No
14
21%
Other
7
10%
 
Total votes : 67
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 07 May 2014, 19:56
Having read the posts above about the state of life in Iran, the realities that have been brought before me, I retract my statements about it being as repressive as I believed it to be. I shall look into it myself over the coming months.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 07 May 2014, 23:57
Iran is probably the most tolerant country in the middle east in regards to homosexuals. Shit people like me for instance even get a state-payed programme for surgical womanhood. American politicians would have a field-day with anyone who even suggested mimicking this policy.

That said I do not like the Shia ways, and I certainly don't like their odd clergy. The best example of thermidor outside France was Iran's Revolution.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 08 May 2014, 01:23
Yeqon wrote:
WHAT! You actually began using historical fact in your defense instead of the bogeyman?! Bravo! This is indeed progress! Keep it up a few more times and you just might turn into someone worthy of serious debate.


Oh wow! Sarcasm! Original!

OK so 1) you fail to address how this isn't a theocracy when it has a religious appointed spiritual leader
2) You defend a regime that murders communists
3) EVERYTHING IS WESTERN LIES AND PROPAGANDA!

The ability to read between the lines and not issue blanket dismissals is what makes a critical thinker as opposed to the leftist drones we have today circlejerking to the supposed brilliance of their internet arguments
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 May 2014, 12:32
There is a difference between defending a regime and opposing stupid exaggeration and slander against this regime. Many regimes murdered communists, such as the Weimar republic. The Iranian regime is certainly not the first one built on communist blood. Keep calm and think dialectically.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 08 May 2014, 12:37
Dagoth Ur wrote:
I do not like the Shia ways, and I certainly don't like their odd clergy.


You don't like their religious ways or only their specific Shia ways? You make it sound like you prefer Sunni ways. Don't get me wrong I don't like any religious ways.




somewhat wrote:
you fail to address how this isn't a theocracy when it has a religious appointed spiritual leader


Oxford Dictionary wrote:
the·oc·ra·cy [thee-ok-ruh-see]
noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.


wikipedia wrote:
Taken literally or strictly, theocracy means rule by God or gods and refers primarily to an internal "rule of the heart", especially in its biblical application. The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, would be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy. In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a direct personal connection with the civilisation's divinity. For example, Moses led the Israelites, and Muhammad ruled the early Muslims. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. An ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation. The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, since the pope did not claim he was a prophet who received revelation from God and translated it into civil law. Religiously endorsed monarchies fall between these two poles, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.


According to what has been stated above, years can pass debating and entire books can be written on what constitutes a theocracy. By the Oxford definition Iran can't be a theocracy because theocracies are governed by Christian ecclesiastical priests and clergy. According to Wikipedia, states that are governed by religious leaders are called something else entirely.

On the other hand it could be argued in the opposite direction by claiming that many western countries are theocracies. In Japan the emperor is believed to be the descendant of the Asian Sun God! The Vatican's Pope is one of the most powerful religious and political leaders in the entire world. The entire Catholic faith (and to a large extent the Christian faith) believe him to be the rightful successor to Saint Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys of Heaven and the divine powers of the Holy Church. That's 1.1 billion Catholics and 2.2 billion Christians. The Queen of the United Kingdom was crowned to the throne by divine right. People pledge allegiance to the United States of America by claiming it one nation under God. They even mention God on the dollar bill bank notes for frag's sake! Then of course there are all the Islamic countries that use Sharia law as the basis for their state laws which include: Afghanistan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

But we don't go around labelling all these countries theocracies now do we? That would be outright idiotic now wouldn't it? The fact of the matter is that theocracies don't exist in modern times as they did in the past or as they're described in religious manuscript.

Even Iran's biggest enemies, the CIA who's job is bring about the complete and final annihilation of Iran's current regime officially describe Iran's constitution as "a hybrid of theocratic and democratic elements".

The point here is not whether or not all theses countries are theocratic or not. The point is that using this one word which in itself isn't as clear as you make it out to be, cannot be used as the basis upon which objective judgement and accurate characterisation can be made. For arguments sake I will agree with you 100% and say that Iran is a theocracy. What does that tell me? How is any serious analyst supposed to make deductions and conclusions on Iranian life based on this one word? You on the other hand used a word that you don't even fully understand to describe a country that you know absolutely nothing about. Your reasoning and analytical skills are infantile and narrow.

You are also completely oblivious to the fact that Marxists analytical thought begins with a deep understanding of a state of affairs before deductions are made. Marxism is in essence scientific reasoning. Observe, analyse, then conclude. Your train of though on the other hand is observe, conclude, then maybe sometimes analyse if the topic tickles my fancy. You saw the word theocracy and thought "Oh it has to be bad! I'm not sure what that word means but if it looks bad it must be bad so frag Iran!".

This type of thinking (although the word "thinking" isn't appropriate here because it would entail a minimum level of intelligence) is no different from those neanderthal racists skin heads who I have been battling all my life in such that: "I hate black people and Jews! I don't know what makes our skin colour different or what the Torah is but Hitler says they're bad so they must be bad! frag all Ni@#$% and Ki%$@!"

Your constant insults towards North Korea and Iran make you sound as racist as they are without realising that actual people live there in peace trying to raise their children and protect their families many of whom are a lot more intelligent than you are. To add insult to injury you even support the sanctions that are choking them when in fact you could have easily been an Iranian or North Korean yourself.


somewhat wrote:
You defend a regime that murders communists.


This was the only time where you actually used historical fact in your defence which would have been a good start. Still you made your classic mistake of deducing based on a few details without any further investigation. It is true that the Tudeh party was persecuted in Iran but you either intentionally or ignorantly forgot to mention that the party was effectively banned and all its assets destroyed in 1953 long before the 1979 Iranian revolution ever took place. What happened later when the Iranian left went underground is extremely complicated and it entails the communists first siding with the Shia clerics to overthrow the Shah and the liberals, then siding with Saddam Hussein in the bloody Iran-Iraq war, then being labelled terrorists by the west, and now they receive funding and support from the CIA and are off the terrorist list. You would have to be an expert in modern Iranian history to make any sort of conclusion but you saw "communists killed" and automatically thought "bad" without asking who exactly were these so called communists. The Khmer Rouge were called communists too remember?! Look how that turned out!

By your logic we should go against almost every single country in the world because there is hardly a single country where communists weren't persecuted at one time or another and that includes post soviet states. Here comes Yami version 2.0! It's just you against the world!

Furthermore being labeled a communist does not automatically exempt you from any possible wrongdoing. A lot of people on this board don't seem to realise that. Being a communist means nothing without positive action to back it up.

Finally where the hell did you ever see me say that I completely support the regime. Putting things into perspective on Iran does not mean I'm defending all of the regime's actions. It would be almost impossible for me to agree with any of the regimes internal policies which I have already stated numerous times before but you seem to forget because you suffer from dementia. I am an atheist Marxist and I believe that all forms of religion should be separate from the state full stop.

I support the Iranian's people right to life without imperialist sanctions that have singled out Iran as the great evil when in fact Iran is one of the most peaceful countries in the middle east. Taking into account all the circumstances, I believe it justified to defend a country that is the victim of imperialist intrigue in the region; and that doesn't mean defending ALL of the regimes policies. I don't agree with most of the regimes internal policies but I do agree with it's external policies.

Right now there is an evident existential threat in the middle east in the form of Jihadi terrorism and an imperialist threat in the form of American and Zionist interests vis-a-vis sanctions and constant Israeli threats of bombardment; both of which is being countered only through the resilience of the Iranian people. Iran is the heart of the anti-imperialist struggle in the middle east right now. If Iran falls; that would mean victory for the rebels in Syria, the end of secularism in the Levant, the possible Israeli occupation of south Lebanon, the further spread of terrorism, and paradoxically the spread of Sharia theocratic rule which you so resolutely oppose.

If you really did understand middle eastern affairs, it would be clear to you that Iran ironically does more to prevent the spread of religious rule in the middle east than it does to promote it. Iran hasn't invaded any country for more than 200 years. Iran represents absolutely no threat to the surrounding countries of the Levant as opposed to the Arabian gulf states who have been promoting and exporting destructive fanatic Islamist ideologies for the past hundred years. The Gulf states are the ones most responsible for international Islamic terrorism. Why are there no sanctions on them or on the apartheid state of Israel? That's the injustice. I personally wouldn't even support sanctions too hastily on Saudi Arabia because that wouldn't be taking into account the millions of foreign workers who depend on Saudi Arabia to feed their families. Passing judgment on countries too hastily is simplistic and much too often destructive. Imperialist powers nevertheless are quite ready to take any action on a seconds notice without a second thought as long as it serves their interests. Only after do they search for justifiable reasons in the form of propaganda to satisfy their greed.

When the threat of Jihadism is eliminated from the Levant, and the imperialist sanctions lifted off the Iranian people can we as communists make an about face and begin the battle against religious rule and repression of the proletariat in Iran. Only then will it be justified.

somewhat wrote:
3) EVERYTHING IS WESTERN LIES AND PROPAGANDA!


Once again you use another idiotic statement to accuse me of something that I never in my life would give a moments thought to. Only simple minded people use such nonsense as reference to prove anything. Even children know that not everything to come out of the west are lies and propaganda. I don't remember any revered Marxist ever stating that EVERYTHING is western lies and propaganda!

As a matter of fact a master propagandist uses truths to spread propaganda more often than he would outright lies. These truths come in the form of half-truths which are historically a lot more dangerous and destructive than lies. By stating that an event happened without including its context, the half-truth can be used to brainwash simple minded people who were too lazy or too dumb to explore the event further, thus anchoring the belief that events happen independent of their surroundings.
Simply put; by saying that subject A murdered subject B without mentioning that A did it in self defence, people are brainwashed into believing falsehoods which are essentially based on truths. That is your inherent flaw. Your only evident defence is always in claiming that other people are brainwashed vis-a-vis North Korea without proving that you yourself are not.

This will be my last post on the topic.

I will conclude my post not with my words but with those words of wisdom by a great Athenian thinker and playwright who incidentally was famous for political and social satire back when the Persian Empire was at its peak:

Aristophanes wrote:
Youth ages and immaturity can be outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.
Last edited by Yeqon on 08 May 2014, 18:01, edited 2 times in total.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2014, 16:51
You've got some nerve to call people stupid.
It's not a question of someone here being stupid or not, the question is who's defending reactionary bourgeois regimes.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 08 May 2014, 17:40
I'm not calling anyone anything. The quote just popped into my head and it's one of my favourites which I thought I'd share even though I don't personally agree with it because I don't think of "stupid" as a state of being. The quote can be quite useful sometimes in fact. I enjoy heated debate. I wouldn't bother posting if I actually thought people here were stupid. This is in fact the only site I ever share my thoughts with.

Never take anything I say personally. I certainly never do...well except for that one time...
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2014, 17:56
Then why are you defending reactionary bourgeois regimes.
And why shouldn't communists go "against every single country in the world". Communists are against nations and borders.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 08 May 2014, 19:16
Loz wrote:
Then why are you defending reactionary bourgeois regimes?


I do not defend reactionary bourgeois regimes. Communists never do. I am defending this particular regime at the moment because there is a greater existential threat in the midddle East that goes beyond class warfare. I am defending Iran the same way two ideologically opposing superpowers defended each other in World War II. I also defend the Iranian proletariat who are unjustly being sanctioned because it is a communists duty to defend the oppressed whenever there is injustice.

Iran's religious rulers won't last forever. Its people will overthrow them eventually. History has taught us that religious bigots never last long.

Loz wrote:
And why shouldn't communists go "against every single country in the world". Communists are against nations and borders.


I would if I could. I just haven't figured out how to do that yet. Well there was this guy who said something about permanent Revolution but I haven't read his work in quite some time. I'll get back to you after I figure him out.

Until then the struggle against nations, borders, and oppression continues...

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 May 2014, 19:57
Since communists can take part in a war of national liberation, they are certainly not "against nations and borders" as an immutable and timeless truth. Although the long term objective is to abolish nations and borders, it's certainly not something that can and should be done immediately.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 09 May 2014, 02:52
Loz wrote:
Then why are you defending reactionary bourgeois regimes.
And why shouldn't communists go "against every single country in the world". Communists are against nations and borders.


So why aren't you out on the streets protesting against your country and its borders? Instead of posting on SE about Iran, I mean? As we say, a better world begins with yourself.

No but really, I still don't see any reason why we should simply say that every single place in the world is a "repressive shithole" with nothing going for it. Like, what is the rationale behind this? We want perfect stateless communism now, and everything else is shit? We've just got this one maximum demand, and if people don't understand this, if they don't understand why everything around them and everything they believe in is shit, they're stupid and we shouldn't bother with them? If not, then what?

Of course we should "defend" even the worst dictatorships from dumb slanders or misconceptions. Because how can we understand reality and try to change it if we only know its cartoon version? I have no great attachment to my "own" country, but if someone said something like this I would not let it go uncorrected, not because I think I actually live in the greatest place on earth, but because it simply misrepresents the real, concrete situation.

It seems clear to me that anything else is just emo kid politics. So the world sucks and everything is shit, and all we've got to offer as an alternative is a set of iron principles: we are against nations, against borders, against states, and that's set in stone. Within that, there is no room for priorities, strategies, tactics, etc. Instead of being "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things", communism just becomes an abstract ideal, a utopia against which everything else is to be measured.

Cleaners on strike for better wages? Yeah whatever, why don't they absolutely believe that classes and borders need to be abolished right now? They're obviously shit and useless. Women in Iran respond to clothing restrictions in the most surprising ways? Whatever, they still live in a shithole, and if you disagree you're "defending" it. This is, of course, very nice as an imperative for oneself in any concrete situation: "It's shit and I wish it didn't exist." How that works towards changing anything is, perhaps, less clear.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 00:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 09 May 2014, 15:20
Protest sadly achieves very little.

Education and assistance to the Proletariat is key really.

Make sure people understand why Socialism is important eg: How it would benefit them.

Organisation and support are so vital because then material examples of how they can benefiit come into play.

Just look at how the KKE are helping the Steel Workers and others.
Food and Monetary support, education to know who, what and Why they are under attack, Options to Resist pressure and achieve gains, and a Path towards another way of living.

KKE is hurt by Media Slander and Other groups that seek to split them but the examples of them being willing to Work and get their hands dirty to help people mean a lot more than Oratory in gaining greater appeal.

Its a shame the people learning what they do tend to be localised due to the lack of an independant Socialist Media apparatus to counter the Mainstream.

The internet helps but the sheer volume of Internet means that most pwople stick to usual haunts and may miss what is there.

Greater Audiencepotential but limited and obscured awareness.
"A shiny bauble from Capitalism is worthless when the cost is Children & the Elderly going hungry, The Infirm & Sick dying because of Greed & Education reduced to a token few to placate the masses with Illusions of freedom."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 12 May 2014, 13:33
I agree, but what does that have to do with this thread?

Anyway, I didn't want to keep this from you guys: an excerpt from an interview of Dutch Trotskyists (IST variety) with a representative of the so-called Revolutionary Left Current. For anyone harbouring illusions in some kind of third, revolutionary camp:

Quote:
In Nederland is er een discussie binnen links over wat we kunnen doen om de Syrische strijd te helpen. Wat adviseer je ons?

De VS hebben in de zomer wel gedreigd met een aanval, maar dat zullen ze nooit echt doen. Ze zijn veel te bang voor een herhaling van het Irak-scenario, waarbij te veel van het staatsapparaat wordt vernietigd. Voer dus de druk op je regering op en eis dat vluchtelingen onvoorwaardelijk worden binnengelaten. Steun uiteraard ook medische hulp. En tot slot, eis van je regering dat er wapens naar de FSA worden gestuurd.

Deze optie is door westerse mogendheden altijd genegeerd, omdat ze de revolutie alleen in woorden steunen. Door wapenleveringen van je regering te eisen, kunnen linkse activisten de hypocriete tegenstelling aan het licht brengen.


My edition of the Google translation:

Quote:
In the Netherlands, there is a debate within the left about what we can do to help the Syrian struggle. What do you advise us?

The U.S. in the summer threatened an attack, but they will never really do so. They are too afraid of a repetition of the Iraq scenario, in which too much of the state apparatus was destroyed. So increase the pressure on your government and demand that refugees be admitted unconditionally. And of course support medical aid. And finally, demand from your government that guns be sent to the FSA.

This option was always ignored by Western powers because they only support the revolution in words. By demanding arms supplies from your government, leftists can bring the hypocritical contradiction to light.


http://socialisme.nu/blog/nieuws/40966/ ... te-zaaien/

So there you have it, the Trotskyist solution: ask our governments to prop up some Turkish catspaw "army" that has been divided, defeated and disgraced ages ago. In the rest of the interview, the guy asserts that the Jihadis are a "political tool" of Assad, and that the Gulf states are only funding them to dissuade their own populations from revolution (as in: this is what happens when you want democracy). Therefore, "the armed struggle on the ground that deserves our support is being waged by the FSA."

As always, just sayin'.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 14 May 2014, 11:00
Loz wrote:
Then why are you defending reactionary bourgeois regimes.
And why shouldn't communists go "against every single country in the world". Communists are against nations and borders.


Loz, you are like me and take Marx too seriously. Most communists only ever and still do only pay lip-service to his writings. They just make it up as they go along and string the workers along with “one day we will have a world of free access” until then you have to work just as hard as you have to under capitalism and live behind a wall. The wall is to defend you from the fascists though, not to keep you in.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2014, 07:56
I support the Working Class of Syria. Right now they are being invaded by foreign backed Islamist terrorist groups. If there ever was a genuine revolution against Assad I would support it completely. But in reality 80% of the Rebels are Islamic Terrorists supportered by NATO, the US and Saudi Arabia while the Kurds are just exploiting the situation to try and declare independance.


I would support a genuine revolution against Gadafi, that isn't what happened!
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 01 Jun 2014, 18:22
So, turns out that a guy suspected of involvement in the shooting up of a Jewish museum in Brussels is a jihadi combatant in Syria returned to Europe.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 01 Dec 2014, 20:23
The Hezbollah led Al-Otaiba ambush has its own Wikipedia page now.

Notice the score in the casualties and losses box:

Al-Nusra Front: 175–192 killed, 7–58 wounded/captured


Hezbollah: None

Sucks to be a terrorist.

Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 22 Apr 2015, 17:20
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 29 Apr 2015, 21:27
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 22 Feb 2016, 12:14
In the light of the recent gains against Daesh, al-Nusra and the FSA made by a coalition of the Kurds and the Syrian Democratic Forces, I would like to inquire as to the opinion of comrades here on the latter movement.

The SDF is an umbrella organisation of mainly former rebel groups that have ceased their hostilities to the Syrian Arab Republic in favour of fighting the takfiri terrorists of Daesh, al-Nusra and similar organisations, but also against the Free Syrian Army and such self-declared "moderate rebels".
They are known for cooperating with the YPG and forces from Rojava, and have main significant gains in recent weeks.

Problem is, many of them are former rebels, they are supported primarily by the United States, and they fly the colonial-era green flag that the FSA is so fond of too. What are your thoughts? Potential partners in the fight against salafism and imperialism? Or opportunistic proxies who will turn on Syria and the Kurds as soon as the opportunity presents itself?
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.