Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32967202 Quoting: Marxist Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32967202
... Quoting: Marxist
Where is the local self determination whilst the region pivots around an imperial theocracy based in Saudi Arabia. A theocracy which all the so-called secular forces in the region pay lip service to as the region continues to set itself apart from the mass of the working class movement worldwide. Islamic socialism (Baathist or Libyan) is a joke. It is as much a joke as is the bogus socialism of Tony Blair or the Chinese. However, give those hegemons their due. They act in concert when confronted by threats to their regional interest. I fall about the place laughing at being told that China has the back of the Arab Empire. China has only one back...and that is China.
The constituent elements of the Arab Empire are a joke and have let down the muslim working class absolutely. They afford no protection to the working class whilst being preyed upon by external forces. In fact local predation surpasses that of the outsider. In contrast, little Israel does a salutory job in securing its own interests.
The best you can do is breakup this joke of a cultural region and start from scratch. You have yet to embark on the modernity of capital (yes, Marx did construe the meritocracy of capitalism an improvement on the arbitrary structures one finds in these outdated feudalisms) let alone address the core inequities.
In other words, you have yet to pass base in your long climb to equity. You are not going to get it by running around the place like a headless chicken playing the victim. You can only do so through solidarity and that comes from a solid understanding of the issues at stake.
So let me get this straight: your Marxist analysis is to support foreign interventions by selfish invaders so as to have the region go through a capitalist "transition" on the road to secular socialism? That's a deluded twist on a familiar theme. You imply the Baathist were mere puppets, phonies, submitting to SArabia. I dont recall their friendship being that close, actually. While the Saddams and Assads and Ghadaffis of the world exercised repressive internal control, wiped out independent Unions, had torture chambers against dissidents,,, one thing they did do was create secular and socialist institutions of health, education, sanitation, infreastructure, resource ownership and development. Now you say "they arent worthy and must be destroyed by foreign invaders" because they "dont support the workers". But, hey, those institutions benefited the workers and farmers and not only raised their standard of living but also their consciousness. Nationalist AND class consciousness, Marxist. Now, when Iraqis, or Syrian or Libyans for that matter, begin to struggle against the repressive national apparatus, do you think they will do it by destroying the infrastructure and institutions that they benefited from? That's what the foreign invaders did,,, as a matter of course,,, to "weaken the regime". They didnt care if the country was crushed into the dark ages, their goal wasnt to build on past achievements, their goal was to save and American lives, crush resistance, control the country and extract the wealth for their benefit.
National progress isnt a linear process, whether transitioning from "capitalism" to "socialism", and self determination and prideful achievement cannot be imposed esp by disinterested foreigners.
I really dont get you. Obviously you are pissed at the "Arab world" and Islamic rule. But you seem to see as a radical solution, even to the extent of jihadists terrorist tactics amd their foreign paymasters,,,, if only "to get the ball rolling to a brighter day". Is that crazy, or what?
Aaah the familiar socialism in one country theme, especially peasant societes. It will not work whilst capital is globalising, now matter how many crocodile tears you shed on the world stage. Once the forces of capital were unleashed, the globalising process, a genie that cannot be put away, was set free. Saddam and Ghadaffis major mistake was continuing to ally themselves with the Arab Empire (you aren't going to tell me that both countries abandoned Islam in an act of pure secularism) and and not allying themselves with like forces in countries such as Cuba in a regional bloc. That would have affordrd them some protection and probably delayed the inevitable day when they were eventually absorbed by capital, with less ignominy. The USSR and China are testimony to the bogus socialism in one country myth.
As for the Arab Empire of which they continued to participate, this is a shambolic structure which affords no one but a feudal elite any relief, not even the basic modernity that accompanies a societies transition from barbarian to capital. Islam is still barbarian and displays all the naivete of the barbarian in as much as it demands justice whilst engaging in the continued expansion of its brute and backwards social economy. So a resounding YES to the fall of this filthy empire to capital. The sooner the better.
I will be dancing with unmitigated joy when the Arab Empire falls to capitalism. As a global humanity, we can then proceed to real progress. Any simpleton who sees common cause with this backwardness is next to bloody useless in the struggle and might as well piss off.
I couldnt agree more for the Emirates and SArabia even though they have plenty of Capital investment, but contract to Indian and Malay second class "guest" (and US) workers the dirty manual labour of grand construction and military projects -- building a revolutionary class from a managerial aristocracy in a klepto monarchy is hardly a base to achieve much. Syria isnt that way. Neither was Iraq or Libya. Their working class/peasant mix was rather modern, and far from the feudal Islamic system you presume. So wrong again. But when will you recognize it and stop equating these secular societies albeit predominantly Islamic religious societies, with Islamic Republics (of which they definitely are/were not)? And another contradiction: if you want "progress" to global capitalism why support their overthrow by the very backward jihadist Wahabbis you supposedly abhor? It seems you support the opposite of what you say you want...
We have a similar setup in capitalism with social democrats whom Marx incidentally viewed as obstructiuonists to the expansion of capital and the play out of dialectioc forces. In contrast he preferred the free market.
These Islamic "secular" republics simply delay the necessary collapse of Islam and grant it an extension that hampers the development of these peoples. For all their so-called secularism, Iraqis were still a backwards people who saw the world in terms of believers and unbelievers, albeit in a padded cell, at Saddams removal.
In contrast, the Islamist revolution in Egypt has opened up a can of worms which threatens to unseat Islam and its sway over these people.
Now if Saddam and Assad had said, we are done with Islam and embracing neutral secularism, then one could see that as a positive development.
It is not the role of progressives to choose the lesser of two evils but to ensure that all the forces that cause change are given an unfettered play.
Whilst I can see why some support limited progress, it achieves nothing in the long term other than to corrupt political awareness.