Syria And The Far Left

[WildCat]

Anyone else notice the deafening silence?

For example, the ANSWER Coalition web site: http://www.answercoalition.org/national/

Not a peep about the ongoing slaughter of civilians there, in fact no mention at all except to say "hands off Syria". Not even sanctions are allowed according to their signs.

This is the same group that organized huge rallies against Israeli actions with a far lower death toll, and absolutely enormous ones against the Iraq war. They orgainized protests in solidarity with the Egyptian uprising last spring.

So why aren't they concerned about the Syrian atrocities?

I've always felt the hard-core "anti-war' left isn't so much against war, only wars prosecuted by western powers. Syria gets a pass, because they're anti-west. Therefore it's OK for them to slaughter civilians wholesale.

I just hope in the future actual peace activists will do more to keep radical opportunists like ANSWER hijack their mission. They are not your friends, and could care less about human rights except as a tool to draw publicity and funds from people they've duped.

 

[Humes fork]

The Syrian regime is anti-Western, and thus an ally under the dictum of an enemy's enemy being a friend.

Given the stunning success and popularity of the Western way of life, I think the far left is rather desperate. If you look at the flags apparent in their demos, they are not anti-war, they are pro-one side.

Take a look at their article about China. Some people clearly live in an alternative reality.

 

[IDB87]

Take a look at their article about China. Some people clearly live in an alternative reality.

Between 1949 and 1955, the Chinese people—with the leadership of the Communist Party of China—eradicated mass starvation, opium addiction and prostitution while making huge advances in wiping out illiteracy, providing health care for the people and stable employment for the urban working class, eliminating landlordism in the countryside, and many other social achievements that were almost unequaled in the history of humankind by their scope, reach and rapidity.

Honestly, all of that is easy to do when 32 million people are removed from a population.

 

[A'isha]

And when you conveniently limit your praise for the elimination of "mass starvation" to the period before things like this happened.

 

[Gazpacho]

Position of PSL, the Marxist group that coordinates ANSWER:

The governments of Syria and Iran are not socialist governments. Both are capitalist countries.… At different times, the two governments have both colluded with and opposed imperialism. But neither is a client state.

What the Obama administration is seeking today is what U.S. imperialism has been seeking since the end of World War II in 1945: global supremacy. A key element in achieving this objective is domination of the oil-rich and strategic Middle East by eliminating all progressive movements and independent states, regardless of their class character. This is what is really driving the U.S. campaigns to bring about regime change in Damascus and Teheran, as well as the destruction of the resistance movements in Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region.

I just hope in the future actual peace activists will do more to keep radical opportunists like ANSWER hijack their mission. They are not your friends

Are you? Who are some "actual" peace activists, anyway? Please post pictures of them wearing kilts.

 

[WildCat]

Position of PSL, the Marxist group that coordinates ANSWER:

Was there an answer in there somewhere?

Are you? Who are some "actual" peace activists, anyway? Please post pictures of them wearing kilts.

"Actual peace activists" = people who actualy seek peace rather than using it selectively to push a Marxist/Maoist ideology.

 

[geni]

Anyone else notice the deafening silence?

Do the occupy count? If so they turned up at one of the protests outside the Syrian embassy in London (one of the most recent of which tried to storm the thing but I doubt you heard about that either).

Otherwise new internationalist is pretty left wing:

http://www.newint.org/features/2011/10/01/syria-bashar-assad/

http://www.newint.org/columns/worldbeaters/2011/06/01/bashar-al-assad-family-syrian/

You've also got to remember that those bits of the left that care about international events were into complaining about Syria before it was cool:

http://www.newint.org/columns/currents/2005/05/01/syria/

 

[Gazpacho]

"Actual peace activists" = people who actualy seek peace rather than using it selectively to push a Marxist/Maoist ideology.

So no names then?

I think it's pretty clear whose interests are served if peace activists are expected to go home whenever socialists show up, for fear of being "hijacked" (a concept that exists more in the minds of war hawks seeking discredit peace activism than in reality).

 

[WildCat]

So no names then?

What a silly request, and what a way to miss the point!

I think it's pretty clear whose interests are served if peace activists are expected to go home whenever socialists show up, for fear of being "hijacked" (a concept that exists more in the minds of war hawks seeking discredit peace activism than in reality).

How about just not allowing groups like ANSWER to hijack the event? Pull your own permit, don't let ANSWER display their banner at the front of the march, don't accept ANSWERs custom-printed protest signs, don't let ANSWER control the microphone, etc etc.

 

[Humes fork]

And when you conveniently limit your praise for the elimination of "mass starvation" to the period before things like this happened.

With the risk of doing a Godwin, it's like saying that Hitler was great for Germany. Between 1933 and 1939 he built up the war-ravanged country.

 

[Gazpacho]

How about just not allowing groups like ANSWER to hijack the event?

I've been present at events coordinated by PSL/ANSWER. I've been at events that weren't, but their representatives showed up, or representatives of the other socalist "usual suspect" groups showed up. The idea that these groups can or do "hijack" events is laughable. They do, however, engage in coalition politics as any activist group must.

 

[Kotatsu]

The Syrian regime is anti-Western, and thus an ally under the dictum of an enemy's enemy being a friend.

Given the stunning success and popularity of the Western way of life, I think the far left is rather desperate.

These statements seem to assume that the left is against the "western way of life". This is not true. The left is broadly against capitalism, but "capitalism" and "the western way of life" are not synonyms. "The western way of life" contains elements which are actively opposed by capitalism, such as the right to free organisation and every human being's equal worth. These are aspects of the "western way of life" that much, but admittedly not all, of the left are decidedly in favour of.

To the OP:
As recently as the day before yesterday I was at a left-wing meeting where the oppression in Syria was condemned by two of three speakers (1) in passing. The meeting was not about that issue, though, so it didn't get covered extensively. The spokesman for foreign affairs of the left party in my country has spoken against the oppression in Syria, and the impotency and idiocy of the right-wing governments in Europe to stop this, a few times. But over all, I agree that it is remarkably silent.

---
(1) I can't remember if the third speaker said anything about it, and he was in any case an "anarcho"-capitalist, and thus not left-wing.

 

[Pardalis]

There really is no difference between the far Left and the far Right, IMO.

 

[timhau]

"The western way of life" contains elements which are actively opposed by capitalism, such as the right to free organisation and every human being's equal worth.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Toontown]

I'm sorry, what?

It said, ""The western way of life" contains elements which are actively opposed by capitalism, such as the right to free organisation and every human being's equal worth."

No, it didn't attempt to support the assertion. It's a free assertion. Use it to feel outraged at Big Capitalism if you wanna.

 

[WildCat]

I'm sorry, what?

Seconded. I have no idea what that even means.

 

[timhau]

I think I have some idea of what it means, but it doesn't make any sense. If you look what nations have given their citizens the right to organize freely, I think you'll find pretty much nothing but nations practicing some form of capitalism/market economy. You certainly don't find communist, fascist, or feodal nations there. As to every human being's equal worth, I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to mean if it's something these same countries fail at. In the West (construed as a cultural group, meaning Europe, North America and those two countries down under and really far to the east), the most egregious forms of political favoritism and ruling-class privilege can be found in communist countries (which is not to say that the political elite in free market democracies doesn't treat itself with really smooth kid gloves). These same countries also typically maintained a system of political prisons, and in my book, countries that don't do that get higher points in the "recognizes every human being's equal worth" category than countries who do.

 

[WildCat]

I think I have some idea of what it means, but it doesn't make any sense. If you look what nations have given their citizens the right to organize freely, I think you'll find pretty much nothing but nations practicing some form of capitalism/market economy. You certainly don't find communist, fascist, or feodal nations there.

Maybe kotatsu will explain.

As to every human being's equal worth, I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to mean if it's something these same countries fail at.

I think it means that 3rd-string NY Giants QB Ryan Perrilloux should be paid the same as Eli Manning. Because they're both human beings, and thus have the same worth.

 

[Fishstick]

I think it means that 3rd-string NY Giants QB Ryan Perrilloux should be paid the same as Eli Manning. Because they're both human beings, and thus have the same worth.

That only makes sense if you think a person's worth is only determined by their paycheck. Which is silly.

 

[WildCat]

That only makes sense if you think a person's worth is only determined by their paycheck. Which is silly.

Until Kotatsu explains we'll never know what he or she meant. But it sure seemed to me in context it was about pay.