Syria and Lebanon

An objective analysis of the political forces would reveal that Hezbollah is objectively a progressive force.

They're religious reactionaries.

that is not true

Attached: pflp hezbollah solidarity.jpg (450x600, 39.57K)

-t. you

They're not communists but they're at least socdems with muslim characteristics, that's a far cry from reactionaries

The USSR closed churches because it understood that religion was a pillar of the capitalist state. Explicitly religious political movements are almost always reactionary, and I've seen little to suggest Hezbollah's one of the rare exceptions; they're not, for instance, suggesting private property is incompatible with Islam.

They may sometimes fight on our side but they're still very far from being /ourguys/.

Firstly, primitive communism=/=communism, this is just poor dialectics.
Secondly, the Israelis had the Kubbutz system for most of their early history, so your point is pretty null.
Not saying Communist revolutionaries need to swear by Das Kapital, but I'm quit sure your not coming from a place of genuine materialist critique, but of one of nonsensical anti-imperialism.

You gotta take into account that Syrian politics has always been a balancing act between the various ethnoreligous communities living within it. The Alawites have historically relied on the Maronite/Christian communities to consolidate political influence. Christian Syrians demanded intervention to protect Lebanese Christians from sectarian violence. This played into Syria's interest in ensuring that Lebanon remain a stable multiethnic polity as a Sunni dominated Lebanon might give the massive Sunni population in Syria the wrong idea in the off chance the PLO comes out on top. On the other hand, if they lose, Syria is at risk for an influx of Palestinian refugees which is usually followed by internal instability and that's never good for a minority dominated government that has a history of badblood with the majority demographic.

Wew, lots of philosemitism itt, anyway how do you niggas feel about the SSNP?

Attached: SSNP-vision-450x277.jpg (651x906 31 KB, 84.38K)

Attached: 1503354351763.jpg (720x611, 39.25K)

...

Fuck off

...

don't even compare Hezbollah to that filth.

Weakening imperialism weakens capitalism which strengthens the forces of socialism both at home and abroad.

Hitler was fighting for porky against the USSR.

Attached: smug satania.jpg (257x320, 20.69K)

Only decent response in this thread. For fuck's sake, are you people really all this retarded?

Anyway, doesn't that mean Syria basically betrayed the PLO when they needed support the most? Syria also backed literal fascists who ended up massacring thousands of Arabs on behalf of Israel like 12 years later. How does that make you feel?

I don't have a bait image sufficient for this post

Attached: 424b1ef9555710a6729e742a20420c32a189821fdb1a17de9409219aa38725d6.jpg (438x454, 31.82K)

The fuck is happening in this thread?

Attached: 1420037700925.jpg (514x438, 63.14K)

Can anyone verify if this story is true or not?

Can anyone verify if this story is true or not?

The absolute state of this board

No it's not, whoever seriously thinks this is an utter retard. Fighting imperialists only necessarily helps "socialism" insofar as it slows the rate of growth of particular groups of capital interests.

Somehow people confuse a group of people refusing to curl up and die with actively attempting to fight capitalism itself.

if you think hard enough you might figure out that what's killing these people is capitalism, so antiimperialism is always an act of anticapitalism
also socialism is a movement, every struggle towards communism is socialism

nice meme

What is it with people and terrible fucking analogies?

i'd ask you if you are retarded but i see you're an anarkiddy poster, so you answered this already
also
that's just the cherry on the top of a retardation sundae

He is right tho, fighting imperialism =/= fighting capitalism. Nothing will change, whether the 'anti-imperialists' win or not

Someone hasn't read about Chinese history from 1911-1949

and there the liberals drop the mask again
going full retarded, but for what purpose?

It is a terrible analogy, but even if you discard it, pushing off attempts at imperialism because it's happening locally doesn't mean that you're attempting to fight back against the source of imperialism in the first place.

If the anti-imperialist fighters never bother to try to get rid of the source of imperialism from abroad then they're just delaying it happening again later, and making no attempt to stop it from happening to their neighbor.

your "understanding" of antiimperialism is so poor that i don't even know where to begin
you lack even most basic education and have no idea what you're talking about
seriously, that's just sad to look at because you talk so confidently while clearly having never bothered to actually read up theory
this is such a superficial approach, i literally cannot even
wow

Last I checked, Maoists were communists

Please explain why Iran or Syria would aid an international revolution. If they win against the imperialists and then they'll sit in their corner of the world, doing nothing important. They might weaken the position of some imperialist powers, but they won't strengthen us.

Attached: 63f0a0f0f7ddd2e619788a58e9097d76ec39be83df1908bb4e47a7d2ca76ff47.jpg (1024x656, 22.82K)

the Chinese revolution wasn't "Maoist" as Maoism wasn't invented until 1988 by the Peruvians and any weakness of capitalism is a strength of socialsim

Thanks twitter

Remind me again where reactionaries who only care about what's happening locally are going to help socialists attempt to fight off global capitalism?

So if we help establish an isolationist theocratic regional alliance interested in mass racial slavery that's a helpful step towards socialism?

Nonsense. Historical materialism is not deterministic, it is not hard to imagine the bourgs advocating or forcibly implementing a regression from capitalism back to a mode of production that grants them more societal authority than they already have.

who invited all these brainlets from reddit?

Attached: 1512353511313.jpg (1066x600, 64.1K)

it's getting more and more clear that you're american
allergic to books and addicted to TV

Attached: 0abcfd02232b53fa7df25f6b419a36591cbddb351d7579b946351854db59eff2.jpg (763x809, 169.6K)

...

Really makes you think. The reason why the Chinese revolution was good was because it created another socialist state. If the fucking Kuomintang had won the civil war, that wouldn't have been a good thing for international socialism.

You can start making an argument any time, fam. I don't see any.

Attached: 1514761826738.jpg (900x729, 66.54K)

Maoism (or MLM, if you prefer) is a concept beyond its name and the guy it's named after, in the same way Newtonian physics is beyond Newton and the time and place he lived. And no one is advocating for the Kuomintang winning the civil war, Mao advocated for the Kuomintang to win the war against Japan, these are two different things, as the KMT was firmly on the side of imperialism in the US, the CCP was able to complete the vision of Chinese national liberation in addition to communism.

i mean you do realize that making claims, that really just expose your lack of education, isn't delivering arguments, right? wrapping it up with shit rherotics doesn't change the fact that it remains retarded claims
in example:

you've clearly never made an argument in your life, which isn't much of a surprise considering your flag
while this is an accurate statement, it's not an argument
and literally all you typed out so far

ITT people sperging out and not answering the goddamn question in the OP

Do you recognize no difference between
and

So this is the power of the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism

And? How is any of this related to my point that anti-imperialism =/= anti-capitalism? That socialists are the only ones who can actually be anti-imperialist? I would kinda agree with that, considering the KMT (who were anti-japanese imperialism) were apparently perfectly willing to get fucked by another imperialist power.

Attached: 0f5b913a4bdc334d6c81738dec1a22495986e13e65e9b45b9e953149200c7b08.jpg (991x902, 101.19K)

I do, and you do, ☭TANKIE☭s don't, Maoists are also anti-tankie and recognize this.

No, socialists are the only people who are consistently anti-imperialist, the national bouj are temporary allies against imperialism, to be buttfucked as hard by the revolutionary boner as the imperialist and comprador bouj.

Thank you. Fucking hell.
I wouldn't even say they're "allies", they're just convenient enemies-of-enemies whom socialists should consider as pieces to be used and disposed of, nothing more.

The ban note on this makes me wonder if Aiden or whoever that is is also Hasbara

FTFY

...

Fighting imperialism anywhere diverts imperialist resources, this helps all antiimperialist struggles.

It is, both the bouj know it and the communist party know it because the bouj ends up stomping the communist party when the anti-imperial struggle ends

Assad first and foremost valued his rule. The PLO takeover of Lebanon and PLO using Lebanon as a glorified military base would give Israel a greenlight to attack Syria and depose Assad. So naturally he stepped in to aid the Maronites.

The second reason is Hafez wanted to control Palestinian parties for his own self interest and Arafat didn't like that.

And the last reason is Lebanon in the 70s and early 80s was a proxy war between Saddam and Hafez. Saddam aided the LNM and PLO (PFLP, pro-Iraq commanders within Fatah like Qaddumi, ALF, PPSF, PLF). Hafez aided the Maronites and later Amal and PLO splinters like the PLA, Fatah al Intifada, PFLP-GC and al Sa'iqa. Iraq in the 70s aided Abu Nidal and Black June to attack Syrian interests and assassinate pro-Syrian and Amal leaders. By 1983, Abu Nidal's anti-Arafat stance was too much of a burden so Iraq kicked him out and he fled to Syria where Hafez used him to target Arafat (who by that point was 100% pro-Iraq)

This wasn't unprecedented nor did it surprise the PLO. Hafez was the head of the Syrian Air Force in 1970 and refused to let his men invade Jordan to help the PLO during Black September. As a result, Jadid was going to kick him out but Hafez couped him before he could do it. Likewise, Syria had a history of preventing pro-Iraq Palestinian groups from entering Lebanon via Syria such as the ALF.

Attached: 453de90faf2d364a679b1c101a759d2c4093d546ffbd1e57526adf2f55cf7e3b.jpg (956x955, 54.75K)

So basically you can construe any conflict as "antiimperialist" if one side attacks another? I'm sure supporting one European power in the "multipolar" world of great power politics in the 1700s was bringing us one step closer to socialism all along!

It's common knowledge that tänkies are one mental breakdown away from offering their critical support to the NSDAP's protracted people's war of national liberation against Israelite aggression and international banking.

Attached: 02364b4e9d8360781f3b1f6256009108fa861f1013d42fd5166c1d38d8f1b6ca.jpg (239x255, 12.67K)

Geez :D

I feel like this is an autistic “gotcha” rather than a question, but it’s because Hafez Assad didn’t want one side of the civil war to completely crush the other side, for fear of the instability that would follow from it. The Christians were getting curbstomped at the time of the Syrian intervention

they're not inherently the same
yes often they do go together (e.g. Vietnam) but not always, like Lenin saying to support the Afghan Emir who obviously was not a socialist

That's just such sloppy reasoning. You're assuming that the so-called imperialist countries have a limited pool or resources or can't adapt to conflicts accordingly. It's also assuming that there is rhyme or reason to Third World conflicts that will somehow lead to a convergence of minor conflicts aggregating into some world revolution. Historically that has never panned out. Imperialist countries don't just up and die because they lose an antiimperialist war. In fact, in France, for example, the Algerian War led the to a military coup that toppled the Fourth Republic for the monarchical Fifth Republic led by arch-conservative De Gaulle (unless you consider De Gaulle good praxis cause he was anti-NATO all while fucking over African like every modern French government). Same can be said with all decolonization conflicts from Africa to SE Asia.

Anti-Imperialism as an idea seems more like extreme wishful thinking, like a kind of a mantra one repeats to oneself to comfort oneself in a hopeless circumstance. It's like, by repeatedly asserting antiimperialism where it doesn't exist, over and over, you hope that the actors actually become so. It's an admission of one's own powerlessness and preying for impossible odds where it doesn't exist. It's projecting onto entirely amoral political forces some kind of moral arc where isn't any. World and regional powers have fought each other in complex webs of intrigues and alliances for centuries, whether there is a material basis or not. Do you seriously think that, in this day and age, that somehow, magically, these Great Power conflicts have transformed into ideological conflicts?

You talk of supporting one power or the other strategically- but why? All ANYONE does on this board, AT MOST, is offer their verbal support. Meanwhile, the said states that are supported couldn't care less about us or, worse, have actually and actively sought to suppress our movements and ideas. That is why I tell you all that antiimperialism is no more than making lip service. It denies material reality and the ideological composition of the states supported.

Anyway, I argue in good faith, so ban me if you must.

Assad first and foremost valued his rule. The PLO takeover of Lebanon and PLO using Lebanon as a glorified military base would give Israel a greenlight to attack Syria and depose Assad. So naturally he stepped in to aid the Maronites.

The second reason is Hafez wanted to control Palestinian parties for his own self-interest and Arafat didn't like that.

And the last reason is Lebanon in the '70s and early '80s was a proxy war between Saddam and Hafez. Saddam aided the LNM and PLO (PFLP, pro-Iraq commanders within Fatah like Qaddumi, ALF, PPSF, PLF). Hafez aided the Maronites and later Amal and PLO splinters like the PLA, Fatah al Intifada, PFLP-GC and al Sa'iqa. Iraq in the '70s aided Abu Nidal and Black June to attack Syrian interests and assassinate pro-Syrian and Amal leaders. By 1983, Abu Nidal's anti-Arafat stance was too much of a burden so Iraq kicked him out and he fled to Syria where Hafez used him to target Arafat (who by that point was 100% pro-Iraq).

This wasn't unprecedented nor did it surprise the PLO. Hafez was the head of the Syrian Air Force in 1970 and refused to let his men invade Jordan to help the PLO during Black September. As a result, Jadid was going to kick him out but Hafez couped him before he could do it. Likewise, Syria had a history of preventing pro-Iraq Palestinian groups from entering Lebanon via Syria such as the ALF.

Attached: 6915fb5ed7c7f82ac9cab5435ed97b0e0c6f461b792113127df2078d27c3b852.jpg (519x497, 198.61K)

Also, 'Trotskyite' is a derogatory term for a Trotskyist. ;)