Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria
Perhaps if you quoted one of the many posts you are thinking of, I might be able to work out what you are talking about ?
Originally Posted by A Marxist Historian
I don't go in for 'praising' political figures. But if I'm looking for some help in understanding what's going on in the world, Lenin's works would be my first port of call.
On Assad's interview, yes, I think he is putting a feeler out to Trump, but tbh, it doesn't look as though he is holding his breath waiting for a response. It is not a matter of principle for him, either way, purely political opportunism.
Syria is a state that emerged out of a long anti-Imperialist struggle, only to be arrested by its own national bourgeoisie. But I don't believe for one moment that there aren't deep anti-Imperialst tendencies and awareness in Syria, because of this history. They have been suppressed I suppose by Assad and co on the one hand and by the false promise of 'democratic revolution' as a gambit of colonialist thieves on the other. And knocked back by the collapse of the USSR and the apparent capacities of modern capitalism to give everyone a smart phone and university education (although not always a job).
I think it's pretty obvious that there aren't any. Any more than Assad is "anti-imperialist," which he most certainly isn't.
The working class - or at least the miners - also stood aside in the Ukraine. In Egypt, they were active, but didn't produce political organisations and leadership that adequately represented their interests.
In the era of imperialism, objectively speaking (whether workers realise it or not, too often they don't) the working class is the only anti-imperialist class. And the battered working class of Syria, whose main objective seems to be to flee the country for someplace, anyplace, better, has been absent from the Syrian civil war.
There is plenty of spade work ahead, to turn this around.
fyi, a good piece by your Trotsky -
Of the very same import was the Eighteenth Brumaire of Bonaparte, the next important stage on the road of reaction. In both instances, it was a question not of restoring either the old forms of property or the power of the former ruling estates but of dividing the gains of the new social regime among the different sections of the victorious “Third Estate.” The bourgeoisie appropriated more and more property and power (either directly and immediately or through special agents like Bonaparte) but made no attempt whatever against the social conquests of the revolution; on the contrary, it solicitously sought to strengthen, organize and stabilize them. Napoleon guarded bourgeois property, including that of the peasant, against both the “rabble” and the claims of the expropriated proprietors. Feudal Europe hated Napoleon as the living embodiment of the revolution, and it was correct according to its standards.
Last edited by C. Flower; 12-02-2017 at 09:04 PM.
“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
— Jean-Paul Sartre