cpgb-ml.org

The anti-war/anti-interventionist stance of the ICT is quite clear, however I am interested to hear arguments regarding the Leninist stance on foreign intervention. This group of "Marxist-Leninists" seem to clearly support Assad, with the headline "Victory to Assad!" They argue Lenin would have supported Assad, being that he opposes the "big imperialists".

‘The socialist revolution will not be solely or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their own bourgeoisie – no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism’ (Lenin V. I., 22 November 1919).‘Consequently, one cannot at present confine oneself to a bare recognition or proclamation of the need for closer union between the working people of the various nations; a policy must be pursued that will achieve the closest alliance, with Soviet Russia, of all the national and colonial liberation movements. The form of this alliance should be determined by the degree of development of the communist movement in the proletariat of each country, or of the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement of the workers and peasants in backward countries or among backward nationalities.’ (V. I. Lenin Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions) What I said in rebuttal is: this was written in the era of real imperialism: Lenin would have opposed Ottoman or French/League of Nations occupation of Syria. I dispute that he would actually support the Assad government, which is undeniably imperialist itself towards Lebanon. A fifty-year dictatorship is not an independence movement. Is this not accurate? Would Lenin have supported ba'athist "arab socialism"? Methinks not, as there is nothing really proletarian about that nation or the ba'athist movement which I compare to National-Socialism. Besides the fact socialism in one country is a joke, supporting Assad seems remarkably un-marxist. That being said, besides the fact that the FSA is not proletarian, what is the opinion of the members here of the proper stance to take as citizens of first world nations who may and are intervening in Syria? Is it our position to just point out that both are imperialist and full of shit, or should we "oppose" intervention (whatever that means?), and if so, to what degree? My stance seems similar to the tone of the articles on this site and that is one of neutrality: I am on the side of the proletariat and both sides will send proletarians to die in the grist mill of war while the end result will undeniably be a "class-based" society. This is just Egypt all over again except now it is far bloodier. I am struck by the fact, and I am sure the capitalist press has to do with this, that if I were on the ground in Syria I may have another position. I probably would be out there protesting and if I were getting shot at I would definitely would want to shoot back. So there is an illusion the FSA will bring "freedom" because they are responding to government slaughter. We know there can be no "freedom" under capitalism, but I wonder if there is such things as shades of gray, and bourgeois democracy may be better for the strict fact that you are less likely, although still likely, to get shot for revolutionary agitation? Anyway, it certainly is not a proper place for a communist to place a great deal of his efforts, but I wonder the proper attitude? Fascism and bourgeois democracy were the same to Bordiga as I see it, but it was the fascists who arrested, imprisoned, and surveilled him, disallowing from his political work, then when bourgeois democracy is restored he crawls out from under his rock, meanwhile there has still been no proletarian revolution in Italy, or in any "democratic" nation. What does this mean? Irrespective, the unnecessary glorification in this article, describing Syria as a "heroic and dignified Arab nation" seems overtly nationalistic, and I cannot help but think Marx would disagree? Thoughts?