Welcome again to everybody. Make yourself at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.

On Sunday last week, Damascus fell to Salafi terrorists and other imperialist-aligned forces. Regardless of the flaws of the ousted government, this is a horrible situation for the Syrian proletariat as well as for the people of Palestine, Lebanon and others. We can only hope for the perseverance of the Syrian workers and the remaining anti-colonial resistance.

☭ Matrix homeserver and space
 ☭ Theory reading group on hiatus, will move to Lemmygrad next year
☭ Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna’s Archive, libgen

  • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    7·
    7 days ago

    What would be the communist and anti-imperialist thing to do in their situation?

    Not doing the US dirty work?

    Far from being based on a single ‘relation of coercion’, the world capitalist system is a tangle of multiple and contradictory ‘relations of coercion’. What determines the ultimate location of an individual (and group) in the camp of the ‘oppressor’ or of the ‘oppressed’ is the hierarchical ordering of these social relations in accordance with their political and social relevance in a determinate concrete situation, on the one hand, and the political choice of the single individual (or group), on the other. - Domenico Losurdo on Class Struggle.

    • multitotal@lemmygrad.ml
      13·
      5 days ago

      Not doing the US dirty work?

      And that means not defending themselves against ISIS.

      Is ideological purity more important than survival?

      • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        5·
        5 days ago

        The dichotomy between nations with a rich history and historyless ‘small states’ was now replaced by that between nations and nationalities. The picture is not much clearer as a consequence. But the theoretical and political crux emerges unequivocally: affirmation of the principle of self-determination does not necessarily entail support for the agitation of ‘small states’ or ‘nationalities’. Engels’ most questionable, or even utterly unacceptable, pages are precisely those that raise a problem of great contemporary relevance: there are countless separatist movements instrumentally encouraged or supported by great powers which are protagonists of national oppression on a large scale. It may even turn out that recognizing a particular people’s self-determination strengthens the main enemy of the liberation movement of oppressed peoples as a whole. We must not lose sight of the conflict of liberties that can arise. In other words, the mutilation of class struggles must be rejected. But that does not mean ignoring the problem whereby a historical situation (especially a major historical crisis) can require a ranking of class struggles.

        why are you talking about “ideological purity” ? I don’t support US stooges, regardless of their ideology, this does not mean i support ISIS either which is also an US stooge, they very well could be getting training in the US bases the SDF hosts or getting weapons through them.

        • multitotal@lemmygrad.ml
          23·
          5 days ago

          they very well could be getting training in the US bases the SDF hosts or getting weapons through them.

          You can’t just say things like that without evidence. If you claim ISIS is training on DAANES territory, then you should back that claim up.

          I have a problem with the “US stooge” label. We can recognise Rojava cooperates with the US, we can say they receive help, money, training, weapons… but we don’t have to rob Rojava of agency. Why can’t cooperation with the US be a temporary, necessary measure on their part, rather than an essential quality?

          • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
            3·
            4 days ago

            I have red lines, and working with the US to destabilize a country is one of them. If that’s not a red line for you, what is?

            • multitotal@lemmygrad.ml
              21·
              4 days ago

              You have to first realise that “red lines, and working with the US to destabilize a country is one of them.” is a construct. Because for example my construction of what’s happening over there is not the same as yours. You say “working with the US to destabilise a country” and I say that the country was already destabilised, and that the people of Rojava saw an opportunity.

              I don’t like the implication that Kurds have no agency. They do and they choose to work with the US instead of the alternative of being genocided.