Why did Russia block the UN resolution on Syria?

Quote:

I have never read Marx's name let alone any of his theories being discussed. I think citing one article in a million is not really strengthening your point, does anyone here disagree with me, marxism is in the papers and not actively suppressed.

I'm using to point out that Marxism isn't actively suppressed in the West. I never said the bourgeoisie don't try and influence what we think about Marxism.

Quote:

I noticed you didn't deal with my argument that there are special police divisions to deal with "radical leftist terrorists" this is how they classify any social movment with marxist leanings.

Provide evidence of these special police divisions. The far left has been shot through as a movement since the end of the Cold War.

As for "radical leftist terrorists"

Communist Party of Britain
Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
New Communist Party of Britain
Socialist Party
Communist Party of Scotland
Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)
et al...

These are all communist groups within the UK which are fully legal and not described as terrorist groups.

Quote:

But then, maybe things are different in Britain, I know there is a Marxist tradition there but travelling across England on different occasions I noted people were just as conservative or nearly as conservative as those in Canada or USA. So I really doubt that Marxism is as common as you make it.

I'm not saying it's common, I'm saying its not actively suppressed.

Quote:

It can only be discussed if it bashes every socialist experiment in history, is my experience if it ever does make it to a mainstream publication.

Well my article has shown you otherwise. If you like, here's another, and another.

Quote:

Honestly, I don't know what you're getting so upset about 'homogenization,'

Because you can't draw accurate conclusions by falsely lumping huge numbers of people together as if they are the same. You do it with the Libyan and Syrian rebels (who are both simultaneously Islamist and pro-Western to suit your particular argument of the moment), and you did it by claiming most British people love Oxford and the BBC.

Quote:

By doing so they tend to also view Western sources above all others, ie Libyan state television is propaganda, but BBC is unbiased.

Some do and some don't. You can't homogenise.

Quote:

Man, seriously, India, Indonesia??? Israel, what!

Israel is a bourgeois democracy and has been for decades. It has a very high rate of economic development India is a bourgeois democracy and relatively recent economic liberalisation has seen a huge level of growth and development. Indonesia was a dictatorship for many years but has seen increased bourgeois democracy since the late 1990s. It is now the third fastest growing economy in the world. ( source - and before you start yes I know it's the IMF and it's a bourgeois source but I doubt they would conduct a grand plot to lie about how quickly the Indonesian economy is growing)

Quote:

Lol ok, what do people in Britain like to read? Marxist publications right

People in Britain read various things (they aren't all identical you know).

Quote:

But we know from experience, regardless of what Marx said, that these groomed elites can go both ways. In the case of Amilcar Cabral, and Pol Pot they turned to socialist ideology, but in many other cases they just represented a continuation for imperialism.

The ones that turned socialist eventually resorted to capitalism. They found socialism was incompatible with such a low stage of development.

Quote:

How does this relate to Libya or Syria? Lets consider Libya, becomes independent under a King who is western client, overthrown, and many researchers have documented the social reforms in this period, arguably the most popular that government ever was. Why exactly should we be against the Libyan revolution of 1969 and the reforms that it brought?

It's a bit silly to be "against" something which happened 43 years ago. It's all about what is best for socioeconomic development. Gaddafi contributed a lot to the development of Libya, but if he was unable to introduce bourgeois democracy I'm not sure how the full revolutionary potential of the Libyan bourgeoisie could be unleashed. Ideally he would have negotiated a settlement with his internal critics and arranged a smooth transition. Sadly, that didn't happen.

Quote:

I'm just disagreeing with you on your support for all these neo-colonial arrangements under imperialism. Its easy to argue for it but when you go to these plantations yourself, and you see the level of cultural imperialism at play in places like Philippines, I just can't go on arguing that this is a good thing. How can destroying a national culture in favour of MTV shit, lead to revolution?

I never said it was going to be nice, I never said it was going to be easy. National cultures are fictious concepts which ultimately need to be destroyed. I don't care if they are eroded. And you are well aware that we are not talking about "MTV shit", we are talking about capitalism: a revolutionary socioeconomic system which has vast potential to unleash in the Philippines provided it be given enough time.

Quote:

See your argument is that imperialism and neo-colonialism are the only way for a country to develop properly. Why is there no alternative?

Now here we get to the crux of the matter. Ideally, there would be an alternative and developing countries would all go through their own industrial revolutions entirely under their own steam just as Western Europe and the USA did. However, the fact of the matter is imperialism isn't going to go away. The third world is developing under the constant shadow of imperialism. Even countries like Japan and Thailand were pushed to modernise under the threat of western imperialism. They launched their industrial revolutions because they realised it was the only way to ultimately combat imperialism.

Quote:

Reactionary is someone who is against revolution, ie something more redistributionist.

I'm not talking about reactionary as someone who is redistributionist. I'm pretty sure the capitalists don't want to redistribute commodities.

Quote:

the nations you cited are not known for being equal. India in fact is one of the worst in the world, there are massive problems there that China is dealing with much more efficiently.

That's because they are developing capitalist countries, what did you expect?

Quote:

Not to invoke some sort of China vs. India argument, but my point is this, India's liberal democratic order is less efficient then whatever you want to call China, lets not get into that. India is not a success story from any conventional viewpoint

India is the second fastest growing economy in the world. It isn't doing as well as China but there are many reasons for the differences between them. Incidently, I do quite like China's model: it appears to be a bourgeois technocracy (to some degree). The important thing is the bourgeoisie are able to influence the government. I also like China because I hope this is state-sanctioned capitalism and one day the party will deem China sufficiently developed that more socialist policies can be reintroduced. We live in hope.

Quote:

Having been to South Korea, and the Philippines myself, I can tell you poverty exist there...

Of course it does, they're capitalist.

Quote:

is the only way for developing countries to industrialize under a cruel Western-backed despot?

What's the other way considering that imperialism remains consistently present?

Quote:

The thing you ignore about tax bases is here is you assume in some African country that that is whats going to happen. Its not really within the interest of the comprador bourgeoisie to do this as they subscribe to the neo-liberal mantra that less government is better, so they already escape paying taxes, and they want to shrink government, and the ability of the central government to deal with the poor.

That's because it's not about dealing with the poor. It's about investment in developing the means of production (tax break would actually increase this).

Quote:

I think you are totally ignoring the psychological and cultural effects of imperialism and suggesting it as a necessary evil.

Yes, because it isn't about psychological or cultural effects. If you can find a magic way of destroying imperialism I would be glad to see it. The closest I can think of is proletarian revolution in the US.

Quote:

Both a local regime or a foreign-oriented one are capitalist, but we have key differences in the level of socialism practiced by each, and thats what we need to consider.

No it isn't, we aren't concerned with socialism at this stage.

Quote:

revolutionary conciousness will more likely be established in a place like Burkina Faso where the leading figure of the nation was a socialist rather than Cote D'Ivoire

Surely it would increase better in a capitalist country where they actually experience capitalist repression?

Quote:

Unless you think most of the world is much happier under imperialism than their own system that they would choose instead.

It isn't about happiness, it's about the development of socioeconomic conditions.

Quote:

Its disingenous to claim that you are for self-determination but then support western client states as the lesser evil.

Self-determination is a myth because nations are a myth. There is no such thing as the Syrian nation, just the Syrian ruling class and the Syrian state which it utilises to maintain its position. We are concerned with implementing changes within the Syrian ruling class and state so as to improve the levels of Syria's socioeconomic development.

Quote:

I am talking about a colony, as in, nations who are not colonies presently, should not go back into that state where they are.

Quote:

The new Libyan government, or at the very least until the NTC leaves, is extremely subservient to interests of Western capital to a degree that the previous regime was not.

I'd like to think that in time this dependency would decrease.

Quote:

You need to live in the present, and not hypothesize about what might happen in the future.

As people who wish to plan and organise a future revolution I think hypothesising about the future is exactly what we need to be doing. The whole idea of communism is a hypothesis!

Quote:

The more socialism in the economy is better because under neo-liberal reforms the key stated goal is to change how people think of goods and services and to commodify "make people responsible" etc., but the whole idea is they are changing the way people view things and under more public ownership, it does strengthen the community in a certain way.

I can barely understand what you're saying. Make people responsible? strengthening the community? What do these have to do with anything?

Quote:

Nationalization is good, when you see the massive demonstrations they have in Venezuela for nationalizations, it is a heartening thing to see, people taking it back, I always thought all socialists supported these kinds of things.

Some of the biggest banks in Britain are nationalised as a result of the crisis. It is not considered good because the ruling class is still the bourgeoisie.

Quote:

When we look at the syrian and libyan governments and their supporters, they may not be marxists, but they are secular, and progressive.

That depends how you define progressive. Assad never wants to reach communism, he is not a Marxist socialist. I don't see how he is progressive. Progressive in this instance should be the development of socioeconomic conditions (capitalism).

Quote:

I'm using to point out that Marxism isn't actively suppressed in the West. I never said the bourgeoisie don't try and influence what we think about Marxism.

History isn't your thing is it?

Quote:

History isn't your thing is it?

Debate clearly isn't yours.

gRed, I can't read the third of your newspaper examples for how Marxism supposedly isn't suppressed, but the first two are actually proving that it is being suppressed. They completely disregard every kind of revolutionary perspective. It's a cleverer version of the "Marx was really smart... as long as we forget that he called for the workers to rise up and smash everything" kind of argument.

Quote:

Now here we get to the crux of the matter. Ideally, there would be an alternative and developing countries would all go through their own industrial revolutions entirely under their own steam just as Western Europe and the USA did. However, the fact of the matter is imperialism isn't going to go away. The third world is developing under the constant shadow of imperialism. Even countries like Japan and Thailand were pushed to modernise under the threat of western imperialism. They launched their industrial revolutions because they realised it was the only way to ultimately combat imperialism.

Thats really my point of disagreement with you. Any strategy to make change in the world has to be based in the present. Its good to plan for the future, but although you are right in pointing to success stories of capitalism it does not turn out this way everywhere. Taking such an absolutist stance on the necessity of capitalist imperialism runs contrary to the popular will. You want to reach marxism by first stamping out popular will and ignoring it whenever you confront it. By claiming that Libya was not capitalist enough, or that no country can effectively industrialize unless it undergoes neo-colonialism you then have to deny that any alternative exists. I don't think its that simple. Ultimately combatting imperialism is all well and good, but if the only thing you are going to do in the mean time is back all these clearly reactionary regimes as a way to advance socialism than that represents a serious problem.

I don't know man, its difficult to debate with someone who simultaneously support imperialism and is a Marxist...

Quote:

As people who wish to plan and organise a future revolution I think hypothesising about the future is exactly what we need to be doing. The whole idea of communism is a hypothesis!

Not to the point we lose sight of the present. To ignore all the grassroots media and public opinion as you do in your analysis and subscribe strictly to marxist theory you miss out on a lot, you have to be able to synthesize them to a greatest extent without denigrating popular movements as ultimately footnotes of history but part of an expression of revolutionary conciousness with great transformative potential. Its something to be admonished not dismissed. As for what you said about China I agree, exactly, china charts an independent course, and we are seeing other countries like Angola do the same. They are becoming a regional power, and pushing the IMF out of the picture. Granted, Angola has some problems, but the point is they are doing quite well for themselves without doing all the things you are saying, anyway here is an article: http://www.economist.com/node/15401935 heres a quote from diplomatic courier, some right wing publisher, but there you go: "With an ever expanding oil industry, large diamond fields and reports of extensive deposits of natural gas Angola is fast emerging as a power to be reckoned with, second only to South Africa. A legacy of 30 years of civil war, where thousands of Cuban and South African troops were involved, has given Angola one of the largest and most experienced armies in Africa. A rising regional power such as Angola is unlikely to accept a dependent position in relation to China."

Now, let me say again and clarify, I'm not against having the capitalist stage we both talked about, I'm not for the imperialist part that you seem to view as inevitable, and something that people can't fight. Thats so defeatist let me first say, and second there have been so many examples of the people scoring victories against forces of imperialism.

Your analysis is built up on unfounded assumptions (you admitted) things you hope or would like to happen, and speculation. My assumption that the mainstream media is consumed by most people is wrong? Its not homogenizing people when they state a view commonly touted in a mainstream publication in the country they are from, and then pointing to the connection. You even linked to the guardian, everyone knows the guardian, BBC, etc, they are the mainstream, you all read it to varying degrees. Some people don't like it, but I'm willing to guess a strong majority of people will listen to BBC over the news from the country Britain is invading, I feel like this point doesn't really need to be argued and you're just being contrarian....

?, and Marxist news is on the front page, come on man, who are you trying to fool... How can you say Libya in time will become less dependent on its Western backers? It seems much more likely that it will become part of the pro-American clique which includes Qatar, ... I understand the growth of capitalism can be rendered a good thing in the long term, but imperialism is an evil that even capitalist reformists will concede as they search for an ethical form of capitalism. Surely, if capitalism is a necessary stage of development as you contend, we can still oppose imperialism as it presents itself. If we look at the rise of UAE, Qatar and so on, they are reactionary in the sense that they are absolute monarchies and they tend to support some fairly controversial measures, no? Being an American ally in the region and having that oil wealth will give them negotiating power, but I think they will have less as a result of the destruction of the civil war... this article http://thinkafricapress.com/libya/oil-friends-gain

See this is the criticism ordinary people have with Marxism and its supporters, is that they don't live in the now, see things in the present. You are saying to combat capitalism ultimately we must resign ourselves to miserable reality and endure until a revolution happens, which by the looks of it in many of these peripheral states will be in generations, or rather not us per se, but everyone else . In fact, you are claiming that those who have already endured centuries of colonialism and imperialism must now suffer some more, because according to theory, it should go that way... do you see how difficult it is to sell something like that? Do you wonder why people are not attracted to that kind of marxism, its as disingenuous as Tony Blair or Stephen Harper claiming colonialism does not exist. At base, that is the disagreement we have, is on activism. I believe in active engagement with various socialist movements ...

Why are we debating the fact that lefists are under watch. They already know your identity, anything strange you do on your computer, like read hundreds of marxist articles. It may not impact your ability to get a job per se, but if you wanted to work in public service at a higher level, don't you think this might come up? Or if you were to apply to many a corporation, this might be discovered in background checks? I mean I hope to myself that this is not true, that would be great. If Canada has an RCMP unit that tracks far left organizations, I highly doubt the UK, a country covered with CCTV does not have any tabs on what far left organizations are doing. That includes sympathsizers as well. Just think of this as you are the UK government, you have groups that are hostile to the government and advocate things like election boycotts, people's war, etc, they are subversives, therefore anyone who reads that stuff regularly is to some extent a security risk to the state. Think about it, its within their interests to keep at least some sort of tab on you which includes your political orientation.

I know you like to believe that media is all these shades of grey, its not black and white, and that I'm homogenizing everyone. Here's the thing, there are different groups within the homogenous title "libyan rebels" there are pro-western liberals, and anti-western islamists, as well as various others, but in the mean time, it is within the interest of both groups to work together. Its not a conspiracy...

I don't know how this debate is going much further, I agree with you that Assad and Gaddafi have many problems and if I were voting they might not be my candidate of choice, but I find from experience western-backed regimes, at gunpoint no less, tend to not be anymore adept at advancing economic development to the extent that it improves on the record of the previous regime. In your analysis you continually ignore imperialism, neo-colonialism, and neo-liberalism as terms of debate, but thats just the issue, is that these are all relevant concepts to the subjects in this debate, and if you believe they are wrong, than you should thoroughly debunk them.

Quote:

gRed, I can't read the third of your newspaper examples for how Marxism supposedly isn't suppressed, but the first two are actually proving that it is being suppressed. They completely disregard every kind of revolutionary perspective. It's a cleverer version of the "Marx was really smart... as long as we forget that he called for the workers to rise up and smash everything" kind of argument.

As I said, I'm not denying that the bourgeoisie is manipulating the discourse (these articles show that), I'm just saying how the state does not outright forbid Marxism. It's not like in Syria or somewhere where websites and books deemed 'inappropriate' by the government are banned, dissidents are arrested and harassed and groups are banned. The difference is the state in Syria is responsible for these, but not in Britain. Instead, the private bourgeois press manipulates the discourse.

If I want to launch a group to put pressure on the government to change something, I can do that in Britain. If I try and do that in Syria, I would be arrested and my group would be shut down.

Quote:

Thats really my point of disagreement with you. Any strategy to make change in the world has to be based in the present. Its good to plan for the future, but although you are right in pointing to success stories of capitalism it does not turn out this way everywhere. Taking such an absolutist stance on the necessity of capitalist imperialism runs contrary to the popular will.

What is the popular will?

Quote:

You want to reach marxism by first stamping out popular will and ignoring it whenever you confront it. By claiming that Libya was not capitalist enough, or that no country can effectively industrialize unless it undergoes neo-colonialism you then have to deny that any alternative exists. I don't think its that simple. Ultimately combatting imperialism is all well and good, but if the only thing you are going to do in the mean time is back all these clearly reactionary regimes as a way to advance socialism than that represents a serious problem.

If an openly Marxist regime came to power in a developing country tomorrow I expect I would support it. The trouble is, every Marxist regime that has come to power (except North Korea) came to power in country's which didn't contain much capitalist development. Eventually these governments either totally collapsed and a capitalist regime entered power or the communist party stayed in power and introduced market reforms and capitalism from within. Why did this occur? I believe it is because there wasn't a sufficient economic base to support a socialist superstructure. So while I would support a Marxist regime in the developing world, I wouldn't hold out much hope for it. If the choice is between a regime which wants to built the economic base through capitalism and a non-Marxist regime that hinders economic development through nationalisation then the former is marginally better because it develops the necessary economic base quicker.

Quote:

As for what you said about China I agree, exactly, china charts an independent course, and we are seeing other countries like Angola do the same. They are becoming a regional power, and pushing the IMF out of the picture. Granted, Angola has some problems, but the point is they are doing quite well for themselves without doing all the things you are saying, anyway here is an article:

Yes, this is good, though I'm not sure to what extent Angola is not co-operating with imperialism. If we look here we can see that "Efforts are currently being taken to boost the private sector and decrease reliance on public investment." It also says "Angola’s economy remains largely driven by public investment, which is blighted by political patronage and corruption." Bourgeois democracy would help fix this. It also says the US and China are the 2nd and 3rd largest trading partners. China and the US are Angola's 1st and 2nd largest importers of Angolan oil which accounts for 95% of its exports.

Some other interesting bits of information: - "several foreign companies are involved in prospecting off Angola’s shores. The outlook remains good. In August 2010, French-owned Total announced works on the water fields north of Luanda that are estimated to contain about 500 million barrels of oil and production is scheduled to begin in 2014. The Italian company ENI also made two new discoveries in March 2010 in the waters off Soyo in the northern region of the country. The previous bidding round for offshore rights was suspended in 2008 following the first post-war legislative elections but the government is aiming to launch a new round in 2011."

"Refining, storage, transportation and distribution of petroleum products are currently held under a monopoly by Sonangol, the state-owned oil company, but these activities are scheduled for liberalisation by 2012."

Quote:

Now, let me say again and clarify, I'm not against having the capitalist stage we both talked about, I'm not for the imperialist part that you seem to view as inevitable, and something that people can't fight.

How do we fight it then?

Quote:

Your analysis is built up on unfounded assumptions (you admitted) things you hope or would like to happen, and speculation.

I admitted my assumption that people in Syria would like to live in economic conditions of a similar level to South Korea is unfounded because I have not polled the Syrian people. Nothing else.

Quote:

Surely, if capitalism is a necessary stage of development as you contend, we can still oppose imperialism as it presents itself. If we look at the rise of UAE, Qatar and so on, they are reactionary in the sense that they are absolute monarchies and they tend to support some fairly controversial measures, no?

Politically, they are reactionary, that's why we must support uprisings there which want to include bourgeois democracy. I just don't see why the bourgeois democracy has to stop at Syria. In terms of capitalism in the region, places like UAE and Qatar have got quite developed economies.

Quote:

See this is the criticism ordinary people have with Marxism and its supporters, is that they don't live in the now, see things in the present. You are saying to combat capitalism ultimately we must resign ourselves to miserable reality and endure until a revolution happens

They tried to implement socialism before capitalism had run its course. Look how that ended up: full on counter-revolution or market reforms a la China.

As for misery: capitalism is built on misery! In fact, many humans were miserable before capitalism; struggling to eke out an existence as a subsistence farmer, having to deal with the constant threat of famine looming over their shoulder.

Quote:

In fact, you are claiming that those who have already endured centuries of colonialism and imperialism must now suffer some more, because according to theory, it should go that way... do you see how difficult it is to sell something like that?

I think a big problem is people can't accept that something cannot happen within their lifetime. Of course we all want to see communism, but if the time is not right then I don't see what can be done about it because if you try and implement it in a society that is not ready for it, you end up with an Ethiopia or a Cambodia.

Quote:

At base, that is the disagreement we have, is on activism. I believe in active engagement with various socialist movements ...

If the Syrian communists came to power tomorrow then I would support them. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted some market policies and some state-capitalist measures in order to continue socioeconomic development. I would also hope they would be genuinely democratic (as in allow the vast masses of the Syrian population to have active participation in the running of the country).

The reason I would support the communists and not Assad is because the communists are attempting to progress somewhere; Assad just subscribes to a bit of welfarism. That in itself is not progressive.

Quote:

Why are we debating the fact that lefists are under watch. They already know your identity, anything strange you do on your computer, like read hundreds of marxist articles. It may not impact your ability to get a job per se, but if you wanted to work in public service at a higher level, don't you think this might come up? Or if you were to apply to many a corporation, this might be discovered in background checks? I mean I hope to myself that this is not true, that would be great.

Yes, I suspect a large amount of us are under watch (though I would think more political party members than just contributors to this site). I was merely pointing out the difference in severity of state repression of information between Britain and Syria.

Quote:

In your analysis you continually ignore imperialism, neo-colonialism, and neo-liberalism as terms of debate, but thats just the issue, is that these are all relevant concepts to the subjects in this debate, and if you believe they are wrong, than you should thoroughly debunk them.

I learnt a couple of years ago when I got into dialectics that there is no such thing as right or wrong; it's just about what is most beneficial for humanity. If communism is the final goal then it's about what allows us to achieve communism. Sure, imperialism is helping maintain western capitalism, but it isn't going to collapse just because it doesn't have a client state in Syria. When I look around, I see imperialism scared by things like the rise of China and how the BRIC countries are going to overtake the US some point this century. If this is the best way to destroy it then so be it. Otherwise, I just don't see can be done. Getting a developing country to just shut itself off from imperialism doesn't work because imperialism has deeper pockets.

gRed Britain wrote:

Debate clearly isn't yours.

The idea that Marxism isn't suppressed in the West is frankly just absurd. In the US there were 2 Red Scares, raids, COINTELPRO (which may as well have been a "third Red Scare"), redbaiting within the labor movement facilitated/encouraged by the authorities, etc. etc.

Communist organizing in the West has always been the victim of state security. "Free speech" is protected here as long as it is not considered threatening. The repression Occupy movement should be evidence enough of this.

Quote:

The idea that Marxism isn't suppressed in the West is frankly just absurd. In the US there were 2 Red Scares, raids, COINTELPRO (which may as well have been a "third Red Scare"), redbaiting within the labor movement facilitated/encouraged by the authorities, etc. etc.

Communist organizing in the West has always been the victim of state security. "Free speech" is protected here as long as it is not considered threatening. The repression Occupy movement should be evidence enough of this.

Yet again I repeat: I don't think Marxism isn't vilified and discouraged by the bourgeoisie who retain a monopoly on the diffusion of information, knowledge and opinion on such subjects (and thus imply they have authority on it). I also don't deny that Marxism has been actively suppressed in the past.

But the very fact that we are able to access this site, discuss an ideology hostile to the ruling class, voice support for revolutions overthrowing bourgeois governments, join Marxist political parties, read Marxist publications, launch Marxist political parties, write Marxist publications, attend Marxist meetings, etc is evidence that the state does not clamp down on hostile ideologies nearly as badly as it does in Syria. Notice how nobody from Syria seems to be contributing to any of these discussions?

I'm not saying the state won't clamp down on Marxism again in the future, but to try and equate Western levels of repression with Syrian levels of repression is ludicrous.

The problem here is that you don't see vilification and systematic misrepresentation as suppression. Boots on the throats of gurgling communists is a bygone practice, abandoned for the efficiency of information control and cultural hegemony. Personally I think it's really only as bygone as the cultural dominance of the bourgeoisie is assured. Our current challenge is impotent and marginalized so pysically suppressing us would empower us with social relevance. Clearly suppression takes more forms than death squads and HUAC senators.

gRed Britain wrote:

Yet again I repeat: I don't think Marxism isn't vilified and discouraged by the bourgeoisie who retain a monopoly on the diffusion of information, knowledge and opinion on such subjects (and thus imply they have authority on it). I also don't deny that Marxism has been actively suppressed in the past.

But the very fact that we are able to access this site, discuss an ideology hostile to the ruling class, voice support for revolutions overthrowing bourgeois governments, join Marxist political parties, read Marxist publications, launch Marxist political parties, write Marxist publications, attend Marxist meetings, etc is evidence that the state does not clamp down on hostile ideologies nearly as badly as it does in Syria. Notice how nobody from Syria seems to be contributing to any of these discussions?

I'm not saying the state won't clamp down on Marxism again in the future, but to try and equate Western levels of repression with Syrian levels of repression is ludicrous.

Yet you completley ignored my post where I brought up the very real state repression of Marxist organizations throughout the 20th century. And if you don't think that Marxism is vilified and discouraged by the bourgeoisie, then you clearly don't read bourgeois publications. And you're thus especially unfamiliar with the Red baiting during the Cold War.

And the idea that the state doesn't repress Marxist groups even today is simply false. On top of that you also completley ignored the very overt repression of the Occupy movement that was significantly worse than, say the arrests in Iran in 08.

No it's not like what's going on in Syria right now, nor is the situation in Syria in any way comparable to the US right now. (The narrative of "the people are rising up and the government is stopping them!" is overly simplistic at best)

Quote:

As I said, I'm not denying that the bourgeoisie is manipulating the discourse (these articles show that), I'm just saying how the state does not outright forbid Marxism. It's not like in Syria or somewhere where websites and books deemed 'inappropriate' by the government are banned, dissidents are arrested and harassed and groups are banned. The difference is the state in Syria is responsible for these, but not in Britain. Instead, the private bourgeois press manipulates the discourse.

You are exactly right, but do you not feel that the works of Chomsky and Foucault, neither are really Marxist we could say, but they both offer a view that the information control models in Western societies is highly advanced. Many scholars from the former Eastern Bloc have acknowledge this to be true as well from living in both environments, the Western methods (See Dubravka Juraga) are more effective at controlling dissent and propaganda techniques. These are valid criticisms which in practice are true, Chomsky calls it the "big lie" which is just as dangerous if not more as the measures used in authoritarian countries. For all the raving about 'totalitarian police states' I think this kind of hysteria exists in academic jargon and in media reports but people certainly tend to overestimate this omniscient power they ascribe to these states. Who has a stronger monopoly on information in their borders, Syria or Canada? Think about it. They may allow dissenting views, but through the model they use, it is much less likely to reach the people. Here foucault's panopticism is useful invoking here, people are heavily inundated with anti-Marxism from birth. (See Disney, all mainstream news) It comes to form a knee jerk reaction then to dismiss any idea resembling Marxism as inherently negative. Granted, the hypodermic needle model that people are so impressionable can be misleading, but assuming that everyone in a 'totalitarian' state is ignorant is self-defeating. We need to be able to understand the instrument of media as being increasingly powerful.

I think your view of imperialism is primarily based on the fact that since we are relatively smaller, we then must shrink back and rebuild strength to win in the long run. But lets consider this, now is a very good time for a revolution. Perhaps you don't agree that the Russian revolution was good, but for the sake of argument lets assume you do. There are many more semi-peripheral countries with growing power, in other words, in a similar position to where Russia is, where a revolution is very possible. The bloc of nations in Latin America, while arguably capitalist, is anti-imperialist and building up an alternative economic order. This is what we need to seek to represent, the building of an alternative economic order. For two reasons, one that this is a positive sign of the weakening of a single empire. two, it strengthens the revolutionary movement because it proves to many people that the empire is not infallible, an alternative is possible, and through unity it can be represented. I was at a presentation from Chilean communist party and the guy said it like this, "Unity may not be the end goal, but it is useful to achieve it." In a way that is essentially the dilemma of progressive movements today, while they have differing ideas of what they want to do, they all want to overthrow the system and work toward something better. By supporting unrestricted free-market capitalism and declaring the empire too strong, playing into their hands. The evidence on whether nationalization or privatization work better to develop an economic base is inconclusive, there is support of both arguments, you can't just declare one will always best the other.

Either way, the revolution has to start somewhere, and it needs financial support. The Soviet Union had to start with no friends, but by the end many countries could have a marxist-inspired coup and count on the support of the Soviet Union. This is where I disagree with the notion as everyone turned to capitalism because it was impossible under socialism, or rather state-directed capitalism, whichever you prefer to call it. The reason it didn't work after 1991 is because it did not have economic backing. Any system is only as good as whoever is backing it, and if the main part of it falls, ie Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, it effectively loses as a power. I don't think this was due to some supreme revelation that capitalism > socialism, the economic circumstances made it impossible. Also, why no mention of America's role as height of its imperial power, it essentially tries to recraft the world in its image... "The End of History?" America projects itself on to the world, and then here again we come to the point of propaganda. Under a system with only one empire, a revolution will have to happen in one country, so we can't simply oppose all movements that are not strictly marxist and do not cave to us economic pressure. If as revolutionaries we both seek to weaken the US empire and support positive development worldwide it seems disingenous to withdraw support from many progressive movements just because they are demonized in the western press.

Right, well who is Angola supposed to trade with? I never said I wanted to see autarky. Bolivia and Venezuela trade with the US, and Iran doesn't. I mean, what are you trying to prove here? They are a regional power and in terms of international affairs are flexing their muscle by defying the US opinion on African affairs in particular, obviously they still trade with the US. On the other hand, Angola is supportive to develop intra-African and links with South America.

Quote:

The problem here is that you don't see vilification and systematic misrepresentation as suppression. Boots on the throats of gurgling communists is a bygone practice, abandoned for the efficiency of information control and cultural hegemony. Personally I think it's really only as bygone as the cultural dominance of the bourgeoisie is assured. Our current challenge is impotent and marginalized so pysically suppressing us would empower us with social relevance. Clearly suppression takes more forms than death squads and HUAC senators.

Quote:

Yet you completley ignored my post where I brought up the very real state repression of Marxist organizations throughout the 20th century. And if you don't think that Marxism is vilified and discouraged by the bourgeoisie, then you clearly don't read bourgeois publications. And you're thus especially unfamiliar with the Red baiting during the Cold War.

And the idea that the state doesn't repress Marxist groups even today is simply false. On top of that you also completley ignored the very overt repression of the Occupy movement that was significantly worse than, say the arrests in Iran in 08.

No it's not like what's going on in Syria right now, nor is the situation in Syria in any way comparable to the US right now. (The narrative of "the people are rising up and the government is stopping them!" is overly simplistic at best)

The whole reason I talked about state repression of Marxism in the first place was to highight the difference of both the quantity and quality of state repression of groups, movements and ideologies deemed hostile to the state (in both Syria and the west). So in Syria, the state suppresses anything it deems to threaten its position and that of the Baath party. In the west (under bourgeois democracy), while this is also true to an extent, the state no-longer retains the power to suppress anything it likes to the degree that it would like. For example: in a general election in Britain, the ruling party cannot use the power of the state to forbid the opposition from campaiging, it cannot arbitrarily arrest them, it cannot block their websites, etc. If the opposition wins the election the ruling party has to surrender the power of the state to the opposition. While this is ultimately arbitrary to us because all these parties are capitalist, it is nonetheless reflective of a political pluralism which is infinitely preferrable to live under than Syrian absolutism. It also represents progress from absolutism to a stage of society whereby more and more people have legitimate influence and access to politics thus leading to a more developed consciousness. This is why I support bourgeois democracy emerging in Syria. If we take it out the context of how it achieves this (let's assume hypothetically the US isn't involved), surely you would all support that over Baathist dictatorship?

So yes, you could say Marxism is suppressed in the west. I only referred to "suppression" as something which is indicative of direct state action against a group/ideology, etc in terms of absolutist qualities (banning, arbitrary arrests, book/internet censorship). I never denied the bourgeoisie maintains a campaign against Marxism in the west, I never denied it has done much worse in the past. I think what we end up with here is no more than a semantic argument.

Quote:

You are exactly right, but do you not feel that the works of Chomsky and Foucault, neither are really Marxist we could say, but they both offer a view that the information control models in Western societies is highly advanced. Many scholars from the former Eastern Bloc have acknowledge this to be true as well from living in both environments, the Western methods (See Dubravka Juraga) are more effective at controlling dissent and propaganda techniques. These are valid criticisms which in practice are true, Chomsky calls it the "big lie" which is just as dangerous if not more as the measures used in authoritarian countries. For all the raving about 'totalitarian police states' I think this kind of hysteria exists in academic jargon and in media reports but people certainly tend to overestimate this omniscient power they ascribe to these states. Who has a stronger monopoly on information in their borders, Syria or Canada? Think about it. They may allow dissenting views, but through the model they use, it is much less likely to reach the people. Here foucault's panopticism is useful invoking here, people are heavily inundated with anti-Marxism from birth. (See Disney, all mainstream news) It comes to form a knee jerk reaction then to dismiss any idea resembling Marxism as inherently negative. Granted, the hypodermic needle model that people are so impressionable can be misleading, but assuming that everyone in a 'totalitarian' state is ignorant is self-defeating. We need to be able to understand the instrument of media as being increasingly powerful.

No I don't deny any of this, I just think that the political model we live in represents an advance from the Syrian model and thus we should support the development of it in Syria. 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:

I think your view of imperialism is primarily based on the fact that since we are relatively smaller, we then must shrink back and rebuild strength to win in the long run. But lets consider this, now is a very good time for a revolution.

I think it is in the west. In the developing world I'm not sure how well it would do. As I said, I feel most would just end up with state capitalism at best

Quote:

Perhaps you don't agree that the Russian revolution was good, but for the sake of argument lets assume you do. There are many more semi-peripheral countries with growing power, in other words, in a similar position to where Russia is, where a revolution is very possible. The bloc of nations in Latin America, while arguably capitalist, is anti-imperialist and building up an alternative economic order. This is what we need to seek to represent, the building of an alternative economic order. For two reasons, one that this is a positive sign of the weakening of a single empire. two, it strengthens the revolutionary movement because it proves to many people that the empire is not infallible, an alternative is possible, and through unity it can be represented.

Well if it is capitalist and building up an alternative economic order, I fail to see how it won't eventually become imperialist. Countries like Brazil have Petrobras starting to expand beyond south America into Angola and the Niger Delta. Still, if it does provide a counter to US imperialism as you suggest, then I don't see why it shouldn't be supported.

Quote:

By supporting unrestricted free-market capitalism and declaring the empire too strong, playing into their hands.

Well I never said we should be ouright propagating this as a public policy. I think communist parties should highlight the bad aspects of western imperialism so as to to foment anger against capitalism in the imperialist countries. It's like how revolution is likely only going to happen when things get worse economically, but we can't exactly go around publically demanding that things actually get worse!

Quote:

Either way, the revolution has to start somewhere, and it needs financial support. The Soviet Union had to start with no friends, but by the end many countries could have a marxist-inspired coup and count on the support of the Soviet Union. This is where I disagree with the notion as everyone turned to capitalism because it was impossible under socialism, or rather state-directed capitalism, whichever you prefer to call it. The reason it didn't work after 1991 is because it did not have economic backing.

Well the USSR was a very large country with a vast amount of resources. If a country like Ghana went socialist tomorrow it would find it difficult to support itself, let alone other Marxist movements. However, in terms of the USSR, the fact that it did collapse is perhaps indicative of the problems of building socialism on an underdeveloped socioeconomic base. I think the Russian revolution was a good thing because Russia developed enourmously over a very short space of time. However, it's collapse has ravaged the international communist movement and I feel we should be focusing on what they did wrong in Russia so we are prepared for next time.

Quote:

If as revolutionaries we both seek to weaken the US empire and support positive development worldwide it seems disingenous to withdraw support from many progressive movements just because they are demonized in the western press.

But that's just it. I don't see how the Syrian regime is progressive. As we've established, a bit of welfare does not equal socialism. Baathism does not involve class warfare or a move towards communism (it actually attacks communists who don't play ball). If we want to see a geuinely progressive regime in Syria we have to lay the grounds for it and I think the bourgeois democracy and pluralistic public sphere I described earlier is a way to do this.

We should criticize past experience, but also be prepared to recognize why it worked, and why it appealed to so many people. Today we see in opinion polls worldwide many regret the fall of the Soviet Union, because it represented something, an alternative poll. Its not a coincidence that the fall of the Soviet Union saw the destruction of social gains over the past several decades. State-directed capitalism within a system which promotes socialism is inevitably preferable to what you are suggesting. Why? Well, you haven't provided an example of an WESTERNIZED state, because lets be clear, you aren't calling for industrialism or capitalism, only insomuch as it is WESTERNIZATION. And thats the problem, you can have capitalism without being dominated by USA. Lets face it, just because the US promotes a new regime, does not then mean it will be more productive, efficient, and so on. Corruption is just as rampant, and the new profits will not necessarily be invested in the economy. Therefore, the economic base will not grow as fast. You need protectionism, Ha-Joon Chang and Rafael Correa are good proponents of this movement. The whole idea that the state cannot provide economic development as well as the private sector is the same kind of mythology the Economist has been advancing since day one. Its simply not true.

That free markets and western bourgeois democracy is superior to state-directed development of any kind is a theory, not a law. I don't see how supporting regimes that favour state development and populism over regimes that favour close ties with the West is incorrect. We should oppose things that are wrong, not justify them in hopes something in our favour will come down the line.

Quote:

The whole reason I talked about state repression of Marxism in the first place was to highight the difference of both the quantity and quality of state repression of groups, movements and ideologies deemed hostile to the state (in both Syria and the west). So in Syria, the state suppresses anything it deems to threaten its position and that of the Baath party. In the west (under bourgeois democracy), while this is also true to an extent, the state no-longer retains the power to suppress anything it likes to the degree that it would like. For example: in a general election in Britain, the ruling party cannot use the power of the state to forbid the opposition from campaiging, it cannot arbitrarily arrest them, it cannot block their websites, etc. If the opposition wins the election the ruling party has to surrender the power of the state to the opposition. While this is ultimately arbitrary to us because all these parties are capitalist, it is nonetheless reflective of a political pluralism which is infinitely preferrable to live under than Syrian absolutism. It also represents progress from absolutism to a stage of society whereby more and more people have legitimate influence and access to politics thus leading to a more developed consciousness. This is why I support bourgeois democracy emerging in Syria. If we take it out the context of how it achieves this (let's assume hypothetically the US isn't involved), surely you would all support that over Baathist dictatorship?

So yes, you could say Marxism is suppressed in the west. I only referred to "suppression" as something which is indicative of direct state action against a group/ideology, etc in terms of absolutist qualities (banning, arbitrary arrests, book/internet censorship). I never denied the bourgeoisie maintains a campaign against Marxism in the west, I never denied it has done much worse in the past. I think what we end up with here is no more than a semantic argument.

This is a strange comparison. Syria is currently undergoing a violent conflict that includes an armed uprising. The United States has not had to deal with something like that even close to the scale in Syria for some time, and if it did: you bet you'd see the same kind of repression in the US.

Your "well it's not as bad as Syria" stance just doesn't make any sense. How are the two even comparable?

And yet AGAIN you ignore my examples of explicit repression of Marxist groups. This isn't a surprise since it doesn't fit into your liberal notion of democracy.

Do you see the inherent contradiction in supporting American-backed regimes (which are themselves a further integration into the sphere of international finance capital) in order to overthrow it? Thats like bombing for peace... how can supporting American regimes somehow lead to socialism, thats not a very workable solution as you can’t base it on examples of how it is any more likely to lead to socialism than any other trajectory, its just based on hope... like Obama, and we all know how that turned out.



The issue with your analysis is you leave out the point that countries like Cuba, China, Bolivia all moving away from western economic system in the sense that they are pursuing a more indepenent policy in general shall we say, but if you state your ultimate goal in your analysis is to generate economic efficiency to build a capitalist base, I don’t see any hard evidence which proves that US-backed regimes exclusively possess this ability. 

In acknowledging that these nations and others are growing faster then we compare against your cases of South Korea, Ghana I think we need to be more keen on instead of looking simply at figures, some case studies should be considered. If we analyze the bourgeois elite in Africa many are of course groomed in colonial system, go to Western schools, and the picture is definitely similar elsewhere. These governments are not estranged from what you term ‘corrupt governments.‘ Here we are really discussing the development from periphery to semi-periphery within the past 20 years or so. 

But, then, might we ask, is the benefit to more socialism in such a system. I would argue first that your myth of bourgeois economic development is false. I mean, we know that certain nations are inevitably going to have to be poor, and there is certainly an order of things. As socialists we need to be committed to breaking that order. The regimes that came to power in Libya and Syria have come about in areas that were traditionally very poor, even with the discovery of oil. I find it very hard to believe that there are not millions of poor in Saudi Arabia, and in fact I believe this to be true. Oil wealth does not mean no matter who runs the nation things will be prosperous for all. I think the fact that in both cases of Syria and Libya how mainstream media talks of ‘splintering’ into different states the imperial concept of divide-and-rule. Likely, that is what would have been promoted, its been done in the past and it certainly is preferable to a strong unified government (See: Sudan)

Lets not speculate too much here, what I’m trying to elaborate on here is that the US is not going to enable all countries that wish to industrialize to do so. Thats simply a matter of policy, it doesnt particularly matter than certain leaders are wonderful statesmen, we need to consider the functioning of imperialism here. Bourgeois democracy has not proven the solution to underdevelopment, when we look at all the states that industrialized, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea, were all dictatorships, not democracies. Furthermore, we can’t really say how well any of these governments would have done without western assistance. We can only really evaluate western-backed regimes and how they compare to 

I feel there is evidence in both examples in this discussion, but you seem to believe there is an inherent superiority in one over the other.

I strongly reject westernization as necessary to development, and as a Marxist it weakens the movement to proceed with an orientalist standpoint. Don’t get all haughty again, but when you project this idea that history MUST go one way, and that is to westernize and talk of it as inevitable and western bourgeois democracy is the only way to go. I don’t think history is that simple to say that revolution can only happen one way, and in one place, and under very specific circumstances. What we see in Russia, China, and Cuba are the most successful revolutions in human history, and their experience with socialism has demonstrated the capacity to develop functional alternatives to capitalism. If the revolutionaries in any of those nations just "waited" for everyone else to revolt we would have lost some valuable chapters in human history. Lets keep that in sight. 


Quote:

This is a strange comparison. Syria is currently undergoing a violent conflict that includes an armed uprising. The United States has not had to deal with something like that even close to the scale in Syria for some time, and if it did: you bet you'd see the same kind of repression in the US.

Except Syria has been banning political parties, torturing prisoners, arresting dissidents, censoring the internet, etc for decades before the uprising started. Yes, maybe in the US you would see that repression in a similar situation, but in Syria you saw it even when there were no disturbances.

Quote:

Your "well it's not as bad as Syria" stance just doesn't make any sense. How are the two even comparable?

Well I just compared them so that's how...

I'm saying the repression in the USA is not as bad as it is in Syria and therefore this is a good thing.

Quote:

And yet AGAIN you ignore my examples of explicit repression of Marxist groups. This isn't a surprise since it doesn't fit into your liberal notion of democracy.

Have you not read anything I wrote? I said yes, of course Marxist groups have been suppressed in the past. But that's like saying that women's rights in the US are just as bad as in Saudi Arabia because up until 1920, women didn't have the vote. Yes things were bad once but they are not as bad now.

You seem to think that just because both states suppress groups hostile to their respective status quos that the methods and extent of this suppression are irrelevant.

Quote:

Why? Well, you haven't provided an example of an WESTERNIZED state, because lets be clear, you aren't calling for industrialism or capitalism, only insomuch as it is WESTERNIZATION.

You're going to have to define what you mean by westernisation. I haven't used the term and don't intend to, I am merely pointing to industrialisation and the benefits of bourgeois democracy and the rule of law - examples of which can be seen in the west. To portray such things as inherently and exclusively western is orientalist because it implies the "Orient" is fundamentally incompatible with them.

Quote:

And thats the problem, you can have capitalism without being dominated by USA.

Yes, but these days it's very difficult to avoid its clutches, at least early on.

Quote:

Lets face it, just because the US promotes a new regime, does not then mean it will be more productive, efficient, and so on. Corruption is just as rampant, and the new profits will not necessarily be invested in the economy. Therefore, the economic base will not grow as fast.

No, so this is why bourgeois democracy and the rule of law is needed, because it provides ways to bring to account corrupt politicans and businessmen.

Quote:

The whole idea that the state cannot provide economic development as well as the private sector is the same kind of mythology the Economist has been advancing since day one. Its simply not true.

I never said the state couldn't, but if you look at industrial revolutions, it is the profit motive of privately-owned capital which spurs growth. People making money for big state-owned industries aren't going to have much incentive if they know they won't keep much of the profits. At the same time, a privately-owned company is much more likely to reinvest profits into the business because the owner knows this is way of increasing his profit returns.

Quote:

Do you see the inherent contradiction in supporting American-backed regimes (which are themselves a further integration into the sphere of international finance capital) in order to overthrow it? Thats like bombing for peace... how can supporting American regimes somehow lead to socialism, thats not a very workable solution as you can’t base it on examples of how it is any more likely to lead to socialism than any other trajectory, its just based on hope... like Obama, and we all know how that turned out.

Whereas your solution to overthrow imperialism is...?

Quote:

The issue with your analysis is you leave out the point that countries like Cuba, China, Bolivia all moving away from western economic system in the sense that they are pursuing a more indepenent policy in general shall we say,

They are moving towards developed capitalism.

Quote:

I would argue first that your myth of bourgeois economic development is false.

Why? I thought you said capitalism is a necessary stage?

Quote:

I find it very hard to believe that there are not millions of poor in Saudi Arabia, and in fact I believe this to be true. Oil wealth does not mean no matter who runs the nation things will be prosperous for all.

Of course, it's capitalism and capitalism involves poverty. Interestingly, a glance at Saudi here shows they have a state-owned oil company, free education, free healthcare and assistance in building houses. Remind you of a similar country nearby? Yet I would support a bourgeois revolution happening in Saudi any day to abolish the feudalism there.

Quote:

Lets not speculate too much here, what I’m trying to elaborate on here is that the US is not going to enable all countries that wish to industrialize to do so. Thats simply a matter of policy, it doesnt particularly matter than certain leaders are wonderful statesmen, we need to consider the functioning of imperialism here.

Wrong, because US imperialism is not one monolithic block that obeys every wish and inclincation of the US government. Apart from a few exceptions (e.g. Cuba embargo), the US government does prevent US companies investing in other countries. In terms of providing export markets for US goods, development is a good thing because it often raises the wealth of some people in the target country, thus companies can sell more types of goods.

Quote:

Bourgeois democracy has not proven the solution to underdevelopment, when we look at all the states that industrialized, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea, were all dictatorships, not democracies.

Yes they were, but they have now moved into bourgeois democracy and this is infinitely better. They now have the best of both worlds (in the bourgeois sense): economic and political.

Quote:

Furthermore, we can’t really say how well any of these governments would have done without western assistance.

I doubt they would have done as well. Imperialism exports its cutting-edge technology to its dependencies.

Quote:

I strongly reject westernization as necessary to development, and as a Marxist it weakens the movement to proceed with an orientalist standpoint. Don’t get all haughty again, but when you project this idea that history MUST go one way, and that is to westernize and talk of it as inevitable and western bourgeois democracy is the only way to go. I don’t think history is that simple to say that revolution can only happen one way, and in one place, and under very specific circumstances.

As I said, I never spoke of "westernisation". Marxism however, is supposed to be a universal theory which logically leads us to conclude that capitalism and the bourgeois revolution are equally as applicable outside "the west" as they are within it.

Quote:

What we see in Russia, China, and Cuba are the most successful revolutions in human history, and their experience with socialism has demonstrated the capacity to develop functional alternatives to capitalism.

No we don't, we see three failed socialist experiments. China only started seriosuly developing after implementing capitalist reforms, Cuba now appears to be going to the reform path, and the USSR, whilst making some substantial developments, eventually collapsed. (Sadly, Russia now needs to complete its democratic bourgeois revolution to wrest power from the oligarchs and Putin's cronies).

Quote:

Except Syria has been banning political parties, torturing prisoners, arresting dissidents, censoring the internet, etc for decades before the uprising started. Yes, maybe in the US you would see that repression in a similar situation, but in Syria you saw it even when there were no disturbances.

The Muslim Brotherhood was banned I believe, but not all political parties were banned.

And I'm not denying that there was political repression in Syria, nor that it severity/intensity of it is high. But to say that it should then look to the US for an example of how to treat political dissent is laughable.

Quote:

I'm saying the repression in the USA is not as bad as it is in Syria and therefore this is a good thing.

Thus it seems that you're not even opposed to repression here. You just think there should be a kinder gentler repression. This is a strange position that I will never understand.

Quote:

Have you not read anything I wrote? I said yes, of course Marxist groups have been suppressed in the past. But that's like saying that women's rights in the US are just as bad as in Saudi Arabia because up until 1920, women didn't have the vote. Yes things were bad once but they are not as bad now.

You seem to think that just because both states suppress groups hostile to their respective status quos that the methods and extent of this suppression are irrelevant.

We're not just talking about the past by the way, that's the thing you're ignoring. The US represses challenges to power: this is what states do.

I just find it bizarre that you keep painting the US as some example to follow when you even admit that it also represses dissent.

This sort of liberal idealism/humanism is only harmful to movements in places like Syria and the United States

Quote:

The Muslim Brotherhood was banned I believe, but not all political parties were banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... s_in_Syria

Notice the lengthy list of banned (clandestine) parties.

Anyway, it's not as if any of the legal ones have a chance at power since the Baath Party is constitutionally considered to be the sole legitimate ruling party.

Quote:

And I'm not denying that there was political repression in Syria, nor that it severity/intensity of it is high. But to say that it should then look to the US for an example of how to treat political dissent is laughable.

In the US it's better. You can sue the authorities, you have the right to a fair trial, you have the right to a lawyer who does not face intimidation, the courts of justice are independent from the ruling party, everyone has the right to attend political meetings, form political parties, stand for office, publish books, look at anti-capitalist websites, etc. The US isn't perfect and Gitmo is a worrying example. But that doesn't equate it with Syria.

Quote:

Thus it seems that you're not even opposed to repression here. You just think there should be a kinder gentler repression. This is a strange position that I will never understand.

A "kindler gentler" allows for more people to engage in the political discourse, develop their consciousness and realise that there are valid alternatives to the bourgeois capitalist model.

Quote:

We're not just talking about the past by the way, that's the thing you're ignoring.

Lol really? And yet you said

Quote:

Yet you completley ignored my post where I brought up the very real state repression of Marxist organizations throughout the 20th century.

Quote:

I just find it bizarre that you keep painting the US as some example to follow when you even admit that it also represses dissent.

Of course it does; it's a state. I'm saying that the US state is a result of dialectical progression compared to the Syrian state. That doesn't mean the US state is progressive, it means that for the Syrian state to evolve into the US state would be progressive.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... s_in_Syria

Notice the lengthy list of banned (clandestine) parties.

Anyway, it's not as if any of the legal ones have a chance at power since the Baath Party is constitutionally considered to be the sole legitimate ruling party

Not sure what your point here is exactly. It seems like you're just arguing for Syria to become a bourgeois democracy.

Quote:

In the US it's better. You can sue the authorities, you have the right to a fair trial, you have the right to a lawyer who does not face intimidation, the courts of justice are independent from the ruling party, everyone has the right to attend political meetings, form political parties, stand for office, publish books, look at anti-capitalist websites, etc. The US isn't perfect and Gitmo is a worrying example. But that doesn't equate it with Syria.

Easy there, straw man. No one is equating the US and Syria. But just because it's "better" doesn't mean that you should tout it as an example. Fascist Italy was probably "better" than Fascist Germany, but they were both rotten systems.

Same goes with the US: the amount of people that have been killed by the US is frankly just disgusting. So to try to paint it as this bastion of freedom as you are trying to do here is an insult to those who have found themselves at the other end of US power.

Quote:

A "kindler gentler" allows for more people to engage in the political discourse, develop their consciousness and realise that there are valid alternatives to the bourgeois capitalist model.

This is absurd as well. You are talking about promoting a bourgeois democracy because it allows people to imagine alternatives to bourgeois democracy? Explain that contradictory logic.

Quote:

Lol really? And yet you said

Yes, I also pointed to the FBI raids on FRSO, the mass arrests at Occupy, etc. You have yet to comment on that.

Quote:

That doesn't mean the US state is progressive, it means that for the Syrian state to evolve into the US state would be progressive.

And you analysis avoids any commentary on imperialism and who the actors in Syria are. Thus it is quite liberal and idealistic, thus a very non-Marxist bleeding heart "analysis."