IMT vs DSA

What is their logic in opposing self-determination?

Would the IMT support a United Syria over the municipalist project one big US military base in Syria?

How is it a debate when they are functionally on the same side?

AFAIK, it's the IMT's interpretation of internationalism. All nationalist movements are bourgeois in their eyes and independence movements are a distraction.

Their position on Syria seems to be "both sides are bad, but FSA and their imperialist backers are worse"
marxist.com/syria-from-revolution-to-counter-revolution-how-it-happened-and-why-a-reading-guide.htm
marxist.com/syria-the-barbarism-of-war-and-imperialist-hypocrisy.htm

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's some accessible stuff they've written on the topic
marxist.com/syria-from-revolution-to-counter-revolution-how-it-happened-and-why-a-reading-guide.htm
marxist.com/syria-the-barbarism-of-war-and-imperialist-hypocrisy.htm
They have a whole syria section on their website
marxist.com/syria/

fuggg

Attached: joseb sdalin xDDDD.png (616x606, 13.73K)

I'm naturally suspicious of Trotskyists but this seems reasonable

I mean that the IMT's wing in England and Wales is Socialist appeal: which is a Labour insular group. As far as British trots go, they are actually pretty good (and believe me, I hate british trots).
Don't make me dream britrotanon, it makes me feel.
Also who wants to know a meme? So Bhaskar Sunkara recently bought and reopened Tribune: the UK's Democratic Socialist paper of Orwell, Foot, and Bevan fame. So this is effectively a fight between Militant Tendency and Tribune, but in America. What an age, ladies and gents, what an age.

The Labour Party is a party of neoliberalism.
You cannnot renew either the Democrats or Labour.

Trot's obsession with coopting other movements is parasitic and this is the main reason why no one likes trots.

When was the last time a neoliberal party had a marxist as its chancellor-in-waiting?
The democrats were founded as a party of the slave-owning aristocracy in the South, Labour was founded as a means to express the proletarian trade union movement. At their cores, one is founded on the elite, the other on the working class. Now you can argue about imperialism, or it's 1990s years: but to say Corbyn or the reinvigorated is anything but legitimately democratic socialist is factually incorrect.

Attached: abc5820a2318b16aa828b7056b9857101d3cb4e78483757831a16528c06e2f95.jpg (1200x625, 118.12K)

labour was a compromise between socialist unions and bourgeois trade unions, as Lenin noted.