We both know saying something isn't the same as doing something. Even Lenin himself is at fault for this. Democratic Confederalism isn't socialism. They've retained private property, wage labor, and commodity production, and ultimately the law of value. Of course, you can't get rid of these things overnight. The allocation of scarce resources, for human need, requires an international proletarian revolution to extirpate the bourgeois control of these resources. The Kurds, however, won't ever be in the position to do this. So, why bother supporting them? In all likelihood, they'll simply be crushed by Assad and the Turks. You're fighting a losing battle.
From Rosa Luxemberg’s private letters to Jan Tyzska:
Connor Cooper
Nathaniel Sanchez
If you aren't using a bourgeoisie in crisis to your every tactical advantage, then you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Sometimes it's a game of access to things, that's what the bourgeois class has in spades, sometimes it's running and hiding in the fold of a social formation whose interests align tangentially to yours. There's no pure way to do revolutionary struggle. You just have to be smart enough to know your point of departure. Lenin did.
Jaxson Moore
Wasn't all of this part of the "Great Game" thing too? How the British and later the Americans wanted to keep the Russians from getting a warm water port, which is why the British and Russians had a lot of agents in the area. I think historians usually say it ended after WW1 but I'd say it's never really ended, hence all the sides funding armed groups in the name of "freedom fighting" or "fighting imperialism"
Jason Campbell
I would say most MLs support Rojava. the ones that don’t are a vocal minority
Josiah Roberts
In this case though it's hard to see why "fighting imperialism" should be in quotation marks. Emir Habibullah *did* fight for Afghanistan's independence against the British empire. The Bolsheviks likewise supported independence movements in Turkey and Persia.
Obviously Soviet Russia also had a "geopolitical" stake in doing this, since the British tried to use Pan-Islamic and local bourgeois movements to struggle against Bolshevism in Central Asia and the Caucasus, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bolsheviks backed progressive forces and renounced Tsarist-era concessions in neighboring countries. I don't see what else the Bolsheviks should have done under the circumstances besides what they actually did.
Julian Turner
The relation between Entente/Central Powers forces and the separatists they supported fit that description more accurately.
Members of the groups CIA props up don't find their way into CIA leadership. Caucasians and Baltics were over-represented in the Bolshevik leadership compared to their population percentage. Stalin himself was a Caucasian.
And there were Red Guards in every major city including the ones in Finland, Ukraine, and the Baltics, along with Bolshevik uprisings and establishment of Soviet power in places like Kiev and Tashkent. It wasn't "muh evil imperialist chauvinist Great Russians dominating and directing everything".
Either way I fail to see how supporting and allying with your comrades across the country in Civil War is "imperialist".
They haven't been "tankies" since the 90s.
Bentley Garcia
I meant to write Amanullah, as I correctly did in an earlier post.
Nicholas Harris
Moralism never, thank you very much.
Samuel Gutierrez
So you have practical experience in bulding something else.
Parker Davis
Are you a communist?