ITT: We wish our president a happy birthday

Attached: 13087354_10208116822211255_5611638587523413319_n.jpg (640x360 882.14 KB, 10.34M)

.

Attached: 0629-OASSAD-Cuba-Syria-Bashar-al-Assad_full_600.jpg (855x495 63.71 KB, 37.52K)

Long Live the Lion of Damascus

Attached: assad-heil.jpg (1200x998 1021.97 KB, 177.57K)

I don't want to make a new thread so I guess I'll ask here:

what the fuck is up with socialism in syria?
who's socialist? Assad? over a dozen US military bases in Syria? why are they not together?
why are capitalist superpowers backing and funding them?
what about ISIS and the other islamic shitheads?
what the fuck even is hezbollah?

I don't understand shit.

yes I'm this ignorant, pls no bully.

lmao

I don't like him.

Fuck off FBI.

This Marcyite trend to get leftists to not simply oppose imperialism and Western chauvinist propaganda, but openly praise and support regimes that aren’t even communist is an obvious ploy to generate justification to have us shut down for supporting foreign enemies of the state under the espionage act.

They already used this to freeze the bank account for Pravda Media.

Name one that is.

Cuba.

Most of the Left-SocDem and M-L groups support the Baath while Anarchists support the Roj ava and Trots unironically support the headchoopers
No hes a SocDem at best and Bordeline NeoLib at worst but is still thheh best option for Syria Imo
About 2 / 3's of land / business is collectivised so it is doing pretty good i guess
Roj Ava are US backed while Assad is Russo backed plus the Roj Ava is made up of "totally not nationalist" Kurdish Nationalists
Geopolitics / Cold War 2.0

You don’t have to be a Marcyite to see that national liberation struggles can be beneficial to the development of the class struggle.

I’m not even going to defend everything nat lib leaders have done but would it have been appropriate not to defend Nasser, Lumumba, and Sukarno simply because they were not communists? What about the IRA, the KMT (when it was revolutionary) or the Indian nationalists?

...

JCP while pretty much Left-SocDems arent completely fucked up atleast

japan-press.co.jp/modules/news/index.php?id=11398

japan-press.co.jp/modules/news/index.php?id=10495

Whether or not natlib is worth supporting at all is highly relative on historical circumstances and who represents the progressive forces. Neoconfederates are essentially natlib and I doubt anyone thinks they’re worthy of any kind of support.

That said, Assad isn’t natlib. He hasn’t libbed a single nat. In fact, he basically inherited the position from his father, they’ve been in power for nearly half a century. Simply being a nationalist not on the best of terms with the US doesn’t make you natlib.

Now THIS is a fucking thermonuclear take. There's no evidence that the South is an oppressed nation within US borders or any sizable part of the southern population actually wants to secede from the US.

Please don't hit me with the "support-the-confederates-against-US-imperialism" line that has become so popular with anti-anti-imperialists. Neither side was "imperialist" in the modern Leninist sense and despite the fact that chattel slavery was a more important issue to tackle in 1860 than slavery–I'd also point out that the condfederacy was hyper-aggressive with plans to colonize much of Latin and Central American. Their terrorist encroachments in that region using the 19th century equivalent of blackwater led to splits even within the American ruling class itself.

Stripped of all historical content could nat-lib apply to Neo-confederates today or white Americans? No, and the main reason for this is that even if the South peacefully secedes or Richard Spencer "peacefully" deports non-white to their new ethnographic-states, an independent South or a white ethnostate in the boundaries of the current US would be imperialist. It would split the working class in the United States making it so workers in one region couldn't travel in search of better opportunities and that would have a negative effect on all US workers in addition to the development of proletarian unity.

I'm being extremely charitable here, because "respectable" public faces for the movement like Richard Spencer don't always represent its actual content. The literary Bible of the movement The Turner Diaries describes the massacre of non-white populations in the US using nuclear weapons; records left by White Power movement members amply demonstrate that their aim was to use peaceful methods (in so far as it was possible) to attain a white ethnostate in the US and Canada and then use the military of said ethnostate to murder the inhabitants of the non-white ethnostates and take their lands.

Breaking Syria into pieces actually helps accomplish the dystopia that would result from a white ethnostate or southern on a world scale. This part of the imperialist strategy, not just to preserve and intensify colonial-economic relations which the bourgeois classes of these nations, but to break the back of burgeoning proletarian movements and proletarian resistance against their employers.
critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/three-books-on-marxist-political-economy/three-books-on-marxist-political-economy-pt-17/

You really have to be a philistine to compare the men I listed in my previous posts and the reactionary nationalists of the United States.

Halile Salessie was an absolute monarchy who inherited his position by divine right and generally kept his people down. But, when the Italian fascists invaded then it became a national liberation struggle. The reason we can say that Assad is leading a liberation struggle today is that US/Western/Gulf-State/Israeli aggression has produced a dialectical change in the situation.

Nice euphemism, but the facts are the US and its friends have fielded perhaps the largest proxy army in modern history to destroy Syria, in addition to many other subversive and destructive acts (not even limited to an uninvited, illegal air campaign and putting troops on Syrian soil).

Neither the security conscious, nor the "you're starting to sound like Alex Jones!" aka liberals wings of the Left really understand how the FBI works. Aaron J. Leonard's recent work goes a long way to bridging that gap for those interested.

But one thing I can guarantee you about the FBI is they aren't trying to con people into supporting anti-imperialist leaders that the US is currently targeting. This is like saying that COINTELPRO was out distributing pictures of Ho Chi Minh just to alienate protestors from the average American. If that was an effective way of subverting the Left then there would be no need to worry about subversion at all.

Attached: trotskyglasses.png (1918x1068 2.46 MB, 1.32M)

Arabs are not an oppressed people in Syria. They have no need for “liberation”, just like the fucking Neoconfederates.

Being in some way the target of imperialism doesn’t make you natlib. The FSA isn’t in power in Syria, the US isn’t in power in Syria, Israel isn’t in power in Syria, Assad is. I have absolutely no disagreement that he is preferable to the area being taken by imperialist powers or some Salafist puppet, but that’s no reason to pretend that a nationalist, capitalist strongman is our dearest comrade.

You can argue anti-imperialism all you want and I won’t fucking disagree. I’m not defending imperialism, I’m disputing that sucking off Assad and acting like he’s our guy is a necessary element to opposing imperialist aggression against Syria.

Funny you should mention that, the FBI actually did create Maoist tendencies like the Ad Hoc Committee for a Marxist-Leninist Party and helped support the creation of the Weathermen because acts of domestic terrorism would allow them to arrest lefties.

Do we have any information on the legal opposition (Peoples will party)?
I heard there are also mostly leftist

Baathists are Arab fascists, while different from the Iraqi Baathists (Syrian baathists much less evil) they are not allies of freedom and leftist values

Leftist technically but stooges

I bet it was that black cats faggot who got his posts deleted, right?

Let me guess, he was making false equivalences again?

Kek, what does this even mean?

Aren't the Syrian Social National Party supposed to be the fascists in Syria? Ba'ath has always seemed less racist

Two guys were banned none of them the cat user
You just lost a bet
Go play ambasador at mongolia now

Go to bed Qasim

You can critically support somebody like Assad without sucking his dick and refusing to acknowledge his many flaws.

Jason Unruhe: Can't Mossad the Assad

youtube.com/watch?v=NcaRcdRAJAw

Attached: maoistrebelnews.jpg (300x300, 31.26K)

Even Scandinavian social democrats are more socialist than him. Russian imperialism just as bad as American.

Russia is literally flanked by NATO to its immediate west and Japan on its east, it's a false equivalency

Fucking kill yourself, or it will be done for you.

"no"

LEARN YOUR FUCKING TELEOLOGY NIGGAA

Stand with Imperial Japan against British-French-American hegemony.

Feel free to cite where Russia has slaughtered as much as Imperial japan.

In absolute terms, it definitely isn't. But that doesn't mean Russia isn't imperialist, and it doesn't mean we should make excuses for it. America should be our priority at the moment, simply for the reason that multipolarity allows us to play competing capitalist powers off against one another much like the Bolsheviks did.

While Russia's role in Syria is largely positive at the moment, it would be naive to think that they don't have their own economic/imperialist motivations for being involved there.

If Russia is at a point where its imperialist ambitions involve bombing other countries into the fucking stone age, then USA is no longer a factor, and we can actually have this discussion.

Russia's primary interest is that they don't want to be completely surrounded by NATO and have all of their allies killed. They're there on invitation from the legitimate Syrian government.

That’s true, but it’s also true that Russia is a capitalist country, and all capitalist countries have insatiable hunger for resources, markets, and cheap labour. This is a case where Russia’s legitimate national security interests and their potential imperial ambition are not mutually exclusive, and they can serve both simultaneously.

That doesn’t mean much. Most countries where the US stations troops “consent” to their presence as well. Making allusions to the empty formalities of bourgeois international law is pointless, although it’s a good point to bring up against libs.

Have u read Lenin's Imperialism tho. Russia is not dominated by finance capital and has no need to emphasize the export of capital since its own working class is sufficient for exploitation right now.

Except the Syrian government is fighting for its sovereignty. If Russia was going to interfere with that, they just wouldn't let them in.

That may be true, but they will inevitably develop to that stage, and if they maintain troops in Syria and an imbalanced power relationship, Syria will inevitably be a target of their imperial ambition. In addition Lenin’s tracing of the development of imperialism through the path of finance capital doesn’t seem to account for resource imperialism. Syria has oil, and Russia’s oil lobby is massive. Russia doesn’t need to be dominated by finance capital for its oil industry to aggressively seek out new sources of revenue.

I don’t know about that. Assad is fighting for Syrian sovereignty sure, but more importantly he’s fighting for Syria to remain sovereign under Ba’ath party rule. If he were to sacrifice some level of autonomy to preserve that rule it wouldn’t be the first time such a thing has happened. In fact given his dependence on Russian aid to win the war, it’s arguable that he has already sacrificed some autonomy in practice.

If there's any actor Assad has given sovereignty up to, it's Hezbollah, they're by and far the most decisive ground force(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Why? The vast majority of capitalist countries have never reached the stage of imperialism.

Pretty big if there buddy, there isn't even an imbalanced power relationship right now.

Is no different in exploitation terms from imperialist exploitation in any other commodity production.

What other way could it be sovereign given circumstances? Also, the Baath party is socialist.

He hasn't.

Horrendous post.

Yes they have, pretty much every western country is imperialist in the sense that its corporations engage in brutal exploitation of the third world. The difference is that modern imperialism doesnt necessitate that those countries themselves send troops to secure their interests. They generally rely on local or other proxies. For example Canadian mining companies are notorious for their brutal exploitation of African minerals. However we wouldn't expect Canada to send troops to secure those interests when the French or US government can do so more effectively. I think its a mistake to tie imperialism to any single country in the modern era. Corporations today aren't joined to their national governments as they once were, and furthermore they are owned by an internationally dispersed group of capitalists. The era of imperialism possessing a truly national character is over.

There obviously is. Assad wouldn't be able to fight the war, much less win it without Russian help. He depends on Moscow for his very survival. While Russia does need Syria to safeguard its interests, its not as desperate a situation for Putin as it is for Assad.

Exactly, which is why I fail to see why finance capital is a prequisite in order for a country to be considered imperialist. If you insist on that being part of the definition, then you wind up with the bizarre conclusion that a country could invade and occupy another to fuel its resource industry without being technically imperialist. I don't think Lenin ever intended to be a part of his definition of imperialism per say, and if he did it was a grave mistake. Rather the development of monopolies and later finance capital is simply a process that drives countries to become imperialist, it isn't imperialism itself. A better or more consistent definition would be the use of force to aggressively subjugate a foreign territory for the purposes of economic exploitation. It doesn't matter if the motivation for doing so was in search of Christians and the Great Khan as it was with the Spanish, or in pursuit of profits as it is with the US. The motivation of the colonizer makes no difference to the colonized.

Under any other anti-imperialist party, including the communist party.

No they aren't. Ba'athist socialism is just developmentalism, no Ba'athist state has ever abolished private property, wage labour, or markets. In fact Assad was privatizing much of Syria's economy before the war began.

The Baath and ssnp are both fascist but the difference is that the Ssnp advocates for the idea of "Greater Syria" so it's followers are more ideological than racist whereas the Baathists advocate for Pan-Arabism. While not throwing people into camps, the Baathists do have a long history of arabizing minorities in Iraqi and Syria

Great revolutionary

Why were my posts deleted?

I really don't see what I said that would warrant them being deleted