What is the future of the Middle East?
Is there any hope for a rebirth of nationalist movements the likes of Nasser and Hussein or did pan-arabism die with Gaddafi. With stability in Syria on the horizon, would this ignite a new offensive with Israel over the Golan Heights, or would they back off completely and focus on rebuilding the nation. Is there any hope for a legitimate communist movement to come out of either Iraq or Iran?
Also post Syiran civil war webms with the goods guys winning
Idk much about the region, but from what I do know, it probably has the most revolutionary potential in the world, maybe just under Asia.
with the election of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the new Iraqi government, it does seem like the actualy republics, and by extension, the people of the middle east are pretty left leaning. I mean, they got the worts of American imperialism, so the anti-burger sentiment is strong. And the fact that the US is the main supporter of the most reactionary forces in the middle east (the Saudis and Israel) makes leftist voices even more favourable. It's definietly a place of interest.
The future of the Middle East is in unpredictable purely for one reason: The Iranian-Israeli war. Such a war, however it plays-out, will be so destructive it will be like the First World War for Europe. No-one could have predicted how that would end-up, just as we cannot predict how the ME will end-up. However what we can say is that there will be several leftwing revolutions during or as a result of the war, and how they play-out will be down to the rest of us.
Why would you want that?
Iraqi Commie Partie is in a Coalition gov with some populist thats about it
Communism is still banned in Iran
Depends on the outcome of the North Syria issue
if best case scenario (Some deal between over a dozen US military bases in Syria and Baath) Happens then they can focus on the Golan
But if unfortunately conflict arises between the two forces then the Syrian issue will take longer to settle
nationalism to a limited extent has been a key feature of any communist revolution to date. Russia, China, Cuba, they all had nationalist elements to them. Similarly, all these nationalist movements that sprung up in the middle east, were often socialist in nature. To a third world nation like most Arabic countries, a nationalist movement is perhaps the closest we'll come to establishing a genuine socialist government
No they weren’t. I support most Ba’athist countries like Syria against imperialism but they never went beyond social democracy (except without the democracy), and Assad was in the process of dismantling even that when the war started. Some nationalism is fine, but Ba’athism is unironically closer to fascism than it is to Marxism.
No chance of communism in Iran in the next 5-10 years unless climate change triggers a worldwide revolution or something but that is also doubtful, communism is still officially banned in Iran I believe.
What? No way, they shouldn't look for revolution anyway since it would immediately be hijacked or orchestrated by the west.
Usually I would say Iran was fairly stable but they did dumb sanctions so not really, but speaking in terms of military, politically and regionally Iran is kind of stable……
I'd rather want a socialist revolution in Saudi Arabia, guillotine the royal family or whatever.
As long as US hegemony, any revolution will be immediately hijacked by the west, regardless of where it takes place.
Such war will not happen in the forseable future.
Israelis now they can not get something relevant from it, and Iranians now it will end with US direct intervention wich of course they want to avoid.
Proff of it not happening is that even with Israel killing dozens of Iranians and bombing every Iranian base in Syria, things have not scalated
The difference is fascism appears as a force against a possible takeover by communists in times of capitalist crisis, other than that it does not have that much common features.
Baathism does not come from this at all, and even some strong communists movements in the Middle Eastlike the PLFP have come from first holding positions close to Baathism, that have eventually developed into Communist liberation movements
What about what happened in Nepal?
even if there were socialist revolutions in the middle east they would be drowned up, the revolution needs to either happen in a country with plenty of industry already there, or at leasta country with plenty of people and resources, that's because whatever country forms will be isolated and sanctioned, and if they don't already have industry, or resources to create industry then they'll be fucked, this is why the soviet union triumphed, while cuba went revisionist
You know that Ba’athists have a long history of anti-communist repression right?
...
Depends of the country.
In Egypt and specially in Iraq yes, but in Palestine or Syria they have cooperated within them
Indeed most of the original PLFP cadre came from Baathism, organizing them the most effective ML group in the middle east.
Not all Baathists are the same or have the same exact praxis and ideology, indeed for example the Baath goverment of Syria had such a bad relation with the Right wing of the Iraqi Baath party (eich couped the original Iraqi Baath party, wich had good relations with the communists) they supoorted the burcher Saddam being toppled (not US occupation though)
Hizbullah is more of a third-positionist movement.
OBOR will probably patch things up, and hopefully calm israel down from sending mossad to start edgy shit
t.knower
The glow in the darkies couldn't traverse the mountains. They got to hire al-qaeda to do that and they don't have the dominance in the region nor could they gain dominance.
Hopefully the commies there do win the presidency, at least that way we'll see if they were legit or revisionists.
What? I mean they are already in power….
They have some theory called "People's multiparty democracy" in combination with Marxism-Leninism, wich although could be reformism but I've been told it is not the classical Eurocommunist "muh the USSR was undemocratic" but that they consider that given the conditions on Nepal this is the strategy to go (and they are at the moment in power so you can't say it does not work)
I must inform myself more about it though, not much of their works are translated
Sorry I don't understand what are you trying to say, what has this to do with the succesful revolution in Nepal?
but the middle east already had Iran vs Iraq and the Lebanese civil war
Maoists abandoned Maoism and became socdems on the behest of India and China
t.1st world leftist who think every succesful revolution is basically treason
beep beep right opportunist alert