Jump to content
Soviet.ie | Sóivéid.ie

Recommended Posts

Why does eveyone seem to support that scumbag assad? He'sa dictator and should be opposed by all socialists.

 

Nobody is supporting Assad per se, they are opposing what is likely to replace him if the NATO rats and their fascist Islamist allies get their way. Compared to them, Assad is a Saint!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure look at this site, for example. There is a picture supporting assad on the side thing.

 

I have the same reaction to seeing his face. As socialists we should never be comfortable with symbols of a bourgeois State, nevermind personifying the leaders of these States.

 

But an image is just a representation of an idea or concept. The picture with Assad on it doesn't mean that we support Assad as a person, or indeed everything he represents or the many brutal things he had done as a bourgeois State leader. However, there is something very important that he represents that most on this site would support, and that is Syrian sovereignty. He is a very recognizable as a symbol for that sovereignty and that is why even groups within Syria that have opposed him for decades, including some groups who have had their members persecuted, tortured and killed by Assad's Mukhabarat, still include his pictures in their posters. They know that despite all of his flaws (and that's putting it mildly), he represents their only chance against a much worse scenario.

 

Ask yourself this simple question, If Assad were to go, what would happen?

 

In NATO interventions, there have been one result. The nation basically disintegrates, completely broken, with no stablilty, continuous conflict. Just look at Somalia, Afghanistan, LIbya and Iraq. With the previous State in tatters, nations are then "rebuilt" in a mode that is more advantageous to US imperial and capitalist designs. That is either a nominally secular puppet state like in Iraq, but the ideal model for imperialism is to rebuild a totalitarian state, with friendly leaders of course, and the easiest way to do that in the Middle East is to promote a fundamental Islamist State, or really a particular version of fundamental Islam, really it has little to do with actual or popular Islam. Just look at where Egypt has been steered towards. Look at the regimes in place in Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar. Much more totalitarian than Syria ever was, inequality like you will not see in any other country, not even in Palestine. It is no accident that these regimes are the most friendly to the US. That is the model that they want to replicate. The model was the same in South America, but there the choice of State for US imperialist designs was the fascist version, like Pinochet's Chile or Paraguay.

 

All of this is clearly against the interests of socialists. There was much more room for socialism to be built in Assad's Syria than there would be in a Wahabi Emirate, and even more so now that Assad has implemented a new Constitution giving the freedom to organise other political parties.

 

So, yes, Assad, the bourgeois State, in an ideal world it would be nice to stand against them, ban their symbols from our site, but unfortunately the people of Syria do not have that luxury. Socialists do not have that luxury. I'm sure that the likes of the Syrian Communist Party are building up their alternative within Syria, but until that is strong enough, the last thing that they need is for Assad and the Syrian bourgeois State to fall. That would be a step backwards, a reactionary step. If that happens, and most believe that it willl happen sooner or later, the first step for socialists (if they aren't wiped out completely) is going to be to fight to have their sovereignty restored. We know from our own experience in Ireland that nationalism and socialism must go hand in hand. You cannot have socialism under imperialism. So, if this happens, if Assad falls, socialists will be fighting for Syrian sovereignty, an end to imperialism. They will be fighting for what Assad's Baath party already fought for and won. They will be fighting to reinstate a new version of Assad, they will be fighting for what they already have. In those circumstances, why would they not fight for Assad today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assad is a nessecary evil at present, as was Sadam Hussein, they were and are tyrants but they are much easier tyrants to remove

 

 

Same cant be said for unnessecary evils like US/Brit imperialists, when they take over the Assads and Husseins are quickly forgotten and a new wave of terror immenses Syria.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assad is a nessecary evil at present, as was Sadam Hussein, they were and are tyrants but they are much easier tyrants to remove

 

 

Same cant be said for unnessecary evils like US/Brit imperialists, when they take over the Assads and Husseins are quickly forgotten and a new wave of terror immerses Syria.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Baathist regimes also brought tremendous benefits to the people, the image of a single facetted brutal dictator is a western inspired one, and is nothing short of Orientalist racism used to promote regime change. I no way condone the brutality, but the social achievements cannot be ignored. The social cohesion cannot be ignored. These regimes that are being picked off one by one by the US are the most socially advanced societies, which is no accident, they are the only regimes capable of resisting globalised capital, not because they have a brutal dictator, but because they are societies which have social organisation and values that have not been broken down by neo-liberal capital, but have been built up by strong socialist-esque leadership. That is what is being targetted here.

 

And no, I'm not defending Assad, I'd happily replace him tomorrow with a socialist alternative if that was in any way possible, but we must appreciate the complexities of the local situation and not simply buy into this simplistic dictator image that the media throws at us, when we are given very little other information. It is no accident that the social achievements of Sadaam, Assad, Gadaffi are never reported in the bourgeois media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does eveyone seem to support that scumbag assad? He'sa dictator and should be opposed by all socialists.

 

I don't believe that Al Assad is a scumbag. I don't think he has done anything particularly bad. He didn't even want to be a leader, but when his father died, he was called to that position. Even then, he has not been a dictator, as such. The Ba'ath Party is a huge structure in Syria, and Al Assad has not imposed his personal will on it. He is no Saddam Hussain. In many ways, he is just a figurehead. But, still, a necessary one, since as the son of Hafez al-Assad, he is able to hold the various factions of the party together, as Syria goes through a very substantial series of reforms - the largest being the adoption of the new Constitution, which has stripped the Ba'ath Party of it's privileges, and has limited presidential terms to two.

 

The West has ignored these major reforms, and continues with the lie that Al Assad is a dictator. The truth is, if Syrians don't want Al Assad, they can vote him out at the next election - there is no need for violence. If on the other hand, the Syrian state is broken by NATO and its Al Qaeda mercenaries, then Syrians will never have a democracy. All they will have is one US puppet after another, and massive sectarian slaughter - as Iraq and Libya now have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×