Over the past year, the US-led imperialism and its junior partners in the region have waged a relentless proxy war against the Syrian Republic. Under the guise of a popular revolt, reactionaries have armed and trained rebel groups to carry out attacks against the Syria’s state and civilian population.

One of imperialism’s most surprising allies in its assault against the Syrian people have been various ‘revolutionaries’ in the First World. Typically First Worldist and hence reactionary in their own right, such nominal ‘radicals’ from core-economy countries have championed the slogan ‘No to Assad. No to foreign intervention’ and have been labeled ‘Third Wayers‘ by their international critics. Various ‘Marxists’ fall under this ‘Third Wayer’ category in respect to Syria, including the so-called Maoists of A World to Win News Service.

Imperialism’s attacks on Syria are not simply a drive to unseat the national government led by Bashar al-Assad. Rather, the successful removal of Baathists from power in Syria will have serious and widely-felt impacts for the people of the Middle East. US imperialism and its allies are hoping to remove Assad so they can wield greater power against Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon.

Regardless of recent policies implemented by Assad in Syria which favored the west, the strategic relation between the west and the Assad-led Syrian government has now changed. As noted by Mao Zedong, when imperialism wages a war of aggression against the people of a particular country, patriotic struggles on the part of those under attack become internationalist in character. Furthermore, it is the task of communists to situate themselves through struggle as the leadership of resistance to imperialism, the vanguard amongst various patriotic forces, and not as the backdoor allies to imperialism.

The conflict in Syria has international implications. Either imperialism will prevail in establishing a proxy government to serve its long-term interests in the region, or various forces will line up and prevail in their resistance to imperialist assaults on their sovereignty. Marxists and genuine revolutionaries should be the most vigorous, fervent, and committed to the cause of Syrian self-determination and liberation. Only through fully participating and leading a successful struggle against the imperialist-sponsored aggression can communists secure favorable internal, regional and international conditions for the further development of proletarian revolutionary struggle in Syria.

First Worldists can often act in a limited progressive manner so long as they consistently oppose their own imperialists’ aggression against Third World peoples. Unfortunately, so-called Maoists like A World to Win and their Trotskyist brethren such as the ‘International Marxist Tendency’ can’t be said to share this basic anti-imperialist commitment. While posing as a reliable opposition to imperialism in their own respective countries, they rhetorically assault the Assad-led government in what can only objectively be described as a form of backhanded support for capital in the region.

For communism to be a legitimate force for liberation into the 21st century, it must also be a leading force in the defense of peoples against imperialism. It is the task of genuine communism to not only defend the self-determination of peoples against imperialism, but to also prove itself in struggle as a leading force representing the broad interests of people globally. The tendency represented by fake Marxists like the self-avowed Maoists of A World to Win and the openly Trotskyist International Marxist Tendency, amongst other First Worldist backdoor allies of imperialism, must be exposed and dispensed with by contemporary communism.

Notes:

http://rt.com/politics/g20-cabos-syria-russia-193/

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrian-crisis-three%E2%80%99s-crowd

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31464

http://presstv.com/detail/2012/06/19/246992/syrian-gangs-receiving-israeli-arms/

http://www.marxist.com/seven-months-into-syrian-revolution.htm

http://www.marxist.com/in-defence-of-the-syrian-revolution-the-marxist-perspective-2.htm

http://kasamaproject.org/2012/02/24/syria-no-to-assad-no-to-foreign-intervention/

Join the conversation! 4 Comments

  1. It would be nice if you ‘Third Worldists’ (ie. white kids in the First World too lazy and inept to actually lead revolutionary struggle in your own context) stopped supporting bourgeois dictators in the Third World. You stupidly assume that solidarity with the Third World means solidarity with rulers rather than with the people. Imperialism sucks, but when you act as though Assad and his miserable clique of deeply unimpressive men are anything other than thugs and kleptocrats, you automatically diminish the credibility of Maoism. So, in fact, it’s YOU who backhandedly support capital in the region. You seem to think (or pretend) that if someone comes under imperialist assault, they should be afforded the status of proletarian heroes. Assad is anything but, and you know it. Your refusal to engage in the Maoist mass line makes you as useless and inconsequential as any of the Red Army terrorist factions in Europe were in the 1970s.

    You should stop practicing liberalism (in this case, indulging in arm chair ‘support’ for the Third World while opposing it in the First World, and hiding behind the internet so as to not even have to directly interact with the working class. And please stop your slander of those who are actually engaged in struggle. You don’t compare to them). Until then, Maoists should have nothing but contempt for you. You’re a cult, not a party.

    Reply
  2. “It would be nice if you ‘Third Worldists’ (ie. white kids in the First World too lazy and inept to actually lead revolutionary struggle in your own context)…”

    This is a stupid ad hominem attack. In reality, you have little ideas of what kinds of organizing I’ve engaged in. Moreover, for all the implied bragging about dedicated revolutionary work in the First World, First Worldists like yourself have next to nothing to show for it..

    “…stopped supporting bourgeois dictators in the Third World.”

    We oppose the dictatorship of capital over the Third World generally. In most situation, we would support a popular uprising against Third World “bourgeois dictators,” the exception being when such “bourgeois dictators” are under direct attacks by imperialists.

    All evidence points to the fact that unrest in Syria is supported by the United States and Israel. Of course I’d like to see a socialist revolution against Assad, but that doesn’t impel me to support a neo-liberal one.

    “You stupidly assume that solidarity with the Third World means solidarity with rulers rather than with the people. Imperialism sucks, but when you act as though Assad and his miserable clique of deeply unimpressive men are anything other than thugs and kleptocrats, you automatically diminish the credibility of Maoism.”

    In terms of power dynamics, simply ousting Assad as is presently being pursued isn’t going to weaken US imperialism. It will strengthen it. Ya, Assad sucks, but when you diminish the global significance of monopoly capital in relation to such “unimpressive… thugs and kleptocrats,” you substitute liberalism for an incisive understanding of class and dynamics and inter-imperialist rivalry. International proletarian revolution isn’t dependent so much on overthrowing Assad as as so much it is on defeating international imperialism.

    Moreover, in terms of effectively expressing political agency, I’m going to be more effective by agitating against US imperialist designs rather than somehow attempting to directly contribute to a proletarian movement in Syria while imperialism is supporting an uprising…

    “So, in fact, it’s YOU who backhandedly support capital in the region.”

    Interesting logic there..

    “You seem to think (or pretend) that if someone comes under imperialist assault, they should be afforded the status of proletarian heroes. Assad is anything but, and you know it.”

    Can you quote what you are referring to here?

    “Your refusal to engage in the Maoist mass line…”

    Again, you don’t know what I’m doing. Second, you are lifting a strategy from 1940’s China and pretending it is the distinguishing characteristic of what defines a communist in today’s separate conditions. Third, it implies that most First World people even fit into the definition of masses (a separate discussion entirely). Finally, even if we could define First World people as part of the masses, to glosses over any question of what a viable mass line might look like. In short, while you are an excellent phraseology, you are full of shit.

    “…makes you as useless and inconsequential as any of the Red Army terrorist factions in Europe were in the 1970s.”

    Another silly, irrelevant use of rhetorical phrases. The comparison is hardly apt.

    “You should stop practicing liberalism…”

    Applying a correct class analysis and a clear dedication is the hallmark of correct practice. The opposite is liberalism. Liberalism is upholding a bunch of silly cookie-cutters principles rather than analyzing the relation and struggles between classes and groups.

    “…(in this case, indulging in arm chair ‘support’ for the Third World while opposing it in the First World…,”

    I’m assuming this is some sort of typo, because it doesn’t make sense in syntax-wise…

    “…and hiding behind the internet…”

    More ad hominems…

    “…so as to not even have to directly interact with the working class….”

    …and phraseology. While most Amerikans work, they are central the global proletariat and in fact exist outside it as a labor aristocracy.

    “…And please stop your slander of those who are actually engaged in struggle. You don’t compare to them).”

    You are right. We are not shills for the CIA by supporting color revolutions.

    “Until then, Maoists should have nothing but contempt for you.”

    I don’t really care about your stupid subjective identity politics. Honestly, First Worldist “Maoists” should either get over themselves and their chauvinism or they should hate me for blasting them on it.

    “You’re a cult, not a party.”

    We don’t claim to be a party… How are we a cult? Again, it’s a stupid claim. You don’t (in this case or throughout your comment) make any arguments or cite anything to back up your claim. It is phraseology: liberal and idealistic, caught up in First Worldism, and de facto supportive of US imperialism.

    Reply
  3. […] Anti-Imperialism.com and its associates have consistently opposed imperialist meddling in countries such as Libya and Syria and struggled against ‘left-wing’ supporters of imperialist intervention. […]

    Reply
  4. […] US Imperialism and Regional Reactionaries Line Up with First Worldist ‘Revolutionaries’ … […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Comment or Question

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Category

Covert Ops, Marxism, Middle East, News and Analysis, Reviews

Tags

, , , , , ,