<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Syria, imperialism and the left</title>
		<description>Discuss Syria, imperialism and the left</description>
		<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/15933-syria-imperialism-and-the-left</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:01:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/15933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>RE: Syria, imperialism and the left</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/15933-syria-imperialism-and-the-left#comment-4348</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The British government, which “cannot afford” to finance education, the Health Service, pensions or a Full Employment programme, is pouring money into what some people, en route to Euston, are calling the Syrian Revolution. Why would that be? Not insignificantly something very similar happened in 1950 when, tired, divided and clueless, the Labour government spent its last months diverting scant resources of manpower and capital into the imperialist assault on Korea. Those who then, mistakenly, turned their back on the peasants and workers of Korea, both north and south by refusing to recognise the fascist nature of the southern government and its Imperial Japanese Police and Army, and the warmongering motives of the United States, by refusing to oppose the imperialist assault, (which became a genocidal attack on all northern villages, towns and cities) ought to be a warning to those today who blithely refuse to denounce and struggle against their government’s war on Syria. No doubt the Assad regime is dreadful. But like the current North Korean government it has been shaped by imperialism, in much the same way as the Soviet State was, over time, moulded by imperialist boycotts, fifth columns and unprovoked wars. It is an unfortunate fact that the, often very positive, legacy of Cliff and IS, is in danger of being seen as nothing more than another variation of Jay Lovestone's bolthole to political impotence, bourgeois respectability and personal fortune. The left in metropolitan imperial lands has a very clear duty to disassociate itself, clearly and absolutely, from the warmongering adventures of the ruling classes. In the past both socialist and trade unionist organs have discredited themselves and corrupted themselves by acting as accomplices in the plunder of colonies, allying themselves and strengthening the enemies of all that they stand for. In Syria and Palestine, where Britain bears a deep responsibility for the suffering in the region, and where its evil meddling has always been sold as humanitarian assistance, the left has a very clear duty to tell its government to leave Syrians to sort out their own affairs. And, most importantly, to devote its energies to combating the assault on the living standards of the people of Britain. What Syrians and others need from British socialists is an example of working class resistance to neoliberalism and counterattacks aiming for power, not scarf waving fans in the stands cheering Saudi salafists and MI6 trainers. I do not believe that people such as the author of ‘leninology’ are consciously furthering the cause of the imperialists but they might as well be. And they will find outlets for their freelance writing will suddenly multiply.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chris2</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/15933-syria-imperialism-and-the-left#comment-4348</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Confusing positions...</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/15933-syria-imperialism-and-the-left#comment-4326</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The third position - that many of us on the Left take (and which is often ignored in these debates and related articles) - is that some of us recognize why certain countries and regimes are on the target list of Empire, NOT because they are all in and of themselves genuinely anti-imperialist, but because, as is the case with Syria (and it would be naive and short-sighted to think otherwise), the imperial desire for regime-change is driven by the desire to break the axis of resistance of which Syria is undeniably a part, if only through its consistent support for the genuine resistance in the region, Hisballah. It is this alliance and challenge to Western regional dominance that the imperialists wish to smash, and have wanted to smash for years now. That is a completely separate thing from arguing that the Syrian or Libyan or Iranian regime have a consistent record of direct anti-imperialist struggle, and that any domestic human rights abuses or demands of their people should be ignored or subordinated because of it. Of course that argument is objectionable on more than one level. It is the alliance that the imperialists wish to break and this is why these countries are being targeted and, in some instances, their popular struggles being conveniently hijacked or curtailed, as has happened now in Syria and in Libya before it. These two positions shouldn't be collapsed or confused, and yet they always seem to be...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sandy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/15933-syria-imperialism-and-the-left#comment-4326</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>nothing left</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/15933-syria-imperialism-and-the-left#comment-4316</link>
			<description><![CDATA[US left seems a bit of a misnomer here. Not sure what left Alex is talking about here. The US liberals, the self proclaimed made for television left, the socialists, the Trotsky left, the marxists, the reformers, the red-on-black anarcho left, the enviro-left.... It seems Alex left out which left he was referring too... ...its a bit of a danger in defining anything left - it often has something left out...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Phlipn</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/15933-syria-imperialism-and-the-left#comment-4316</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Missing the geo political context</title>
			<link>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/15933-syria-imperialism-and-the-left#comment-4315</link>
			<description><![CDATA[the US base at Incirlik Turkey is the control centre for the insurgency in Syria. It is a wholly US controlled process. That you consider Gulf client states to be acting independently of the US speaks volumes about your naivety. The geo political consequences of the loss of Syrian independence are immense, particularly for the Palestinians. To bestow it with any progressive character is to aid and abet imperialism.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Tom Cooke</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/15933-syria-imperialism-and-the-left#comment-4315</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
