Did I say I don't?
No.
Rather, I said I don't encounter your style of "communist". The leftists I encounter in the U.S., and many of the people I've encountered, in general, in Europe don't cling to the failures of Marxist ventures in history. Instead, they try to learn from those failures.
Do you want me to go back and quote all the numerous times I said
let's learn from the history of socialist movements rather than dismiss them altogether? That's been my point this whole time: stop dismissing them altogether and look at the successes. That's been precisely my response as it was you, not me, who dismissed entirely and totally the movements of, say, Cuba or the Soviet Union. I've been the one saying "let's learn from the history", and you've been the one making broad black-and-white characterizations. Can you please be even a little bit honest? As for "my kind of communist", I'm a Marxist-Leninist and, admittedly, that's not the most popular school of thought nowadays.
Tiassa, what is it specifically that leads you to think I'm just an "obscure joke"?
I find that an incredibly bigoted outlook. Of course, as an American, I am familiar with the underlying superstition. My conservative neighbors often juxtapose such extremes as if those are the whole of human dimension. In this case, I certainly recognize the danger of Syria falling into the classic trap that an excess of liberty is itself a form of tyranny; but I reject the notion that Muslims in general, or Syria in specific, is only capable of one or another manner of tyranny. Indeed, we see this in contemporary America; the conservative privilege asserts that equality is oppression—ethnic and religious minorities, women, and homosexuals are all subject to the argument: If I cannot deny your rights, then my rights are abridged.
Every nation must face this question as it strives for the prosperity of justice.
Can you offer me any vision for a better era, in which the risks of the journey toward liberty and justice for all in Syria will be any less?
Fair point, but not
this movement. Now now, after it has exposed itself to be supported by Saudi Arabia and Islamic fundamentalists. Not this particular movement, a largely religious and not secular struggle. The Alawites of Syria have long been oppressed, brutalized, and murdered by the majority Sunnis. I don't trust this movement.
And? Does that mean it should continue to do so?
What incentive has a person or society for improvement if those gains will simply be held against them?
I doubt they have moved past the days of imperialism, considering recent history.
The confines of reality are rather quite broad when compared to whatever alternate universe justifies your fear of justice and human liberty. Deal with reality, comrade, not phantom windmills.
My conception of liberty doesn't include the liberty for religious extremists to murder minorities, comrade.
If you expect people to think you wise, or even take you seriously, in arguing for futility, I would suggest you think again.
The futility is in supporting the "rebels". Various people on the international stage have already recognized the movement as the foreign-backed sham it is.
No, I have never characterized entire nations and periods of history in one fashion unless as a response to your doing so.
How free and legitimate are American elections?
Which happens to dovetail with your Russian chauvinism, to boot.
Please quote me where I displayed Russian chauvinism.
Well, that's a great reason to favor permanent, brutal dictatorship in which the majority of citizens fear for their safety.
Except they don't. Syria has had one of the lowest crime rates in the world, and has been one of the safest countries in the Middle East for ages now.
The Christian minority in Syria would have a lot less to fear for their safety if they hadn't spent decades supporting a nasty, brutal dictatorship (which used exactly such an excuse) in the first place.
So why did the United States support Saddam Hussein and Fulgencio Batista?
What gives you the moral high ground to criticize them? At least they're supporting someone in their own country.
Dictatorship is inherently bad. It violates the fundamental right of political self-determination.
You mean, the same way the US backing foreign regimes does the same thing?
And whence cometh these "rights" you speak of? More idealism on your part.
Dictatorship is bad no matter who is in charge.
I disagree. A dictatorship of the working class is not bad. Dictatorship means control of power.
The United States is qualitatively more democratic than any of the other states at issue here.
I see. Seems to me like you think so because you are an American and are displaying a chauvinistic attitude here.
Nah, not really. They're pretty developed.
I meant socially and culturally.
That's the only reason that any country is ever the ally of any other country.
In particular, it is the reason that Russia continues to support Assad - and not because of any high-minded ideas about secularism or the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism.
I trust Russia a hell of a lot more any day of the week.
But, apparently, brutal oppression and dictatorship does not raise any troubling questions for you, at least when carried out by parties opposed to the USA.
Ditto for you when carried out by parties under the control of the USA, from what I've gathered.
Well, then, again: go ahead and listen to all of the various other parties who are making the same condemnations, if you don't want to listen to the USA.
I will, any day of the week. As you'll recall, I never said Assad was pure or innocent; only, that he was a better choice than the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law.
Okay, then, again: go ahead and take seriously what any number of other parties are saying. The USA isn't the only voice condemning Assad's brutality.
As I said above, I will. At least I can trust the intentions of nations like Switzerland more, who don't have a history of corruption and hypocrisy.
The secularism of the Assad regime is hollow - the regime has always worked by entrenching the Alawites and buying off the Christians. It's essentially a confessional state like Lebanon, and not any kind of real secularism, regardless of what the Baath propaganda says, or how Assad tries to contrast himself with the putative "Islamic fundamentalists" to rally support for his crimes.
The Alawites have been murdered and massacred for years. Before Hafez Al-Assad, it was they who lived in fear.
Actually, I'm becoming convinced that the situation is that he is basically a Russian chauvinist, and has latched onto this whole throwback ideology as part of that. It harkens back to a time when Russia was a major pole of world power, with an expansive ideology that commanded serious consideration the world over. The collapse of the USSR being the worst catastrophy to befall Russia's standing, prosperity and prestige in living memory, it makes sense to pound one's fist on the table for the righteousness of that former glory.
Anyway, that explains both his superficial, overzealous, anachronistic advocacy of Soviet Communism, and also his embrace of the Putin party line on Syria here. Likewise, I'm given to believe that this sort of identification has become something of a thing in Russia recently, especially amongst the younger set for whom it is all an abstraction to begin with.
I never advocated Soviet socialism. Rather, I point out its successes. And why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't I? I can point out its successes without saying "Hey, let's return to an exact copy of Stalin's Russia".
