[Marxism] A note on the complexities of the Syrian uprising
acpollack2 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 7 10:44:01 MDT 2012
Brilliant. Richard does a great job of looking at the specifics of
imperialist interventions (and lack thereof) -- and I say interventions
plural because he distinguishes between different interests, and resulting
different words and deeds, within that camp (as well as divergences between
them and subimperialist powers, and within the latter as well).
I'm a little uneasy with Richard's repeated use of the term "principal
contradiction," because of the way Maoists have abused it, but I think with
a little explication we can see that his conclusion in this area are
To be specific: One source of resentment by the revolutionaries against
Assad is the latter's failure to effectively or seriously oppose
imperialist and Zionist oppression of Syria and of the region as a whole.
So one could say the "secondary contradiction" of the regime v. working
class dispute within Syria is also in part a product of the "principal
contradiction," i.e. the dispute between the Syrian nation (or the Arab
Nation as a whole) and imperialism and Zionism.
So while at the moment the battle is occurring primarily along the fault
lines of this supposedly "secondary" contradiction, it is doing so as part
of a decades-long "principal" contradiction between the nation and
Anyway to simplify matters and stop further reliance on these problematic
terms, one need only look back to what Trotsky wrote about Spain, China and
the Soviet Union, and the need (and right) of each country's masses to
overthrow regimes which were sabotaging an effective fight against the
bourgeoisie internally or externally, and that this might have to happen in
the very darkest moments of the battle against those bourgeoisies.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> Richard Seymour responds to John Rees
More information about the Marxism