[Marxism] Fwd: The hypocrisy of “Anti-Imperia =?utf-8?q?list=E2=80=9D_support_of_Russian_intervention_in_Syria_=7C_NO TA?=
meisner at xs4all.nl
Wed Oct 7 06:08:11 MDT 2015
At 21:53 06-10-15 -0400, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
>It is a fact that Joshua Frank, the co-editor of CounterPunch, has
>broken with the amen corner.
Do you mean his mealy-mouthed piece where he goes so far as to say that to
be consistent against foreign involvement we should also oppose Russian
intervention in Syria? Where he boldly points out that "Assad has never
really given a shit about the majority of the Syrian people" and that some
FSA forces "may have had revolutionary leanings at one point" among other
concessions? I haven't followed Joshua Frank enough to know if he used to
be uncritical of Assad, in which case this may represent a real shift on
his part, but my main observation in reading his column was how much his
assumptions matched those of the "anti-imperialist" left he is finally
taking issue with.
While opposing the Russian bombing, he still sees the Syrian
revolutionaries (supposedly tools of the US) as being the larger problem:
"Does this mean FSA hasn't also committed horrific, bloody war crimes?
Certainly not, and thats exactly why we ought to oppose all U.S. (read:
Saudi/Mossad/CIA) meddling. But lets not stop there." So also oppose
Assad's war crimes instead of JUST opposing "Saudi/Mossad/CIA meddling,"
like PSL for instance. Hurray.
And while "the weakened FSA has extremist elements who have fought along
IS" (yeah, right) he cautions that "pressing the U.S. to drop its support
of the FSA, for example, is only hindered by the new Russian fighter planes
swooping in." And not to "ignore the grievances certain rebels have with
Assads regime, many of whom were taking up arms against the Syrian Army
long before the U.S.s assistance." Again, if all of this is a great shift,
then I'd hate to see his previous positions.
But actually I now see the issue isn't Syria or Russia or any of that.
Again it has to do with Counterpunch. Louis has written many hard-hitting
polemics against the so-called "anti-imperialist" left in relation to Syria
(and other issues) where he takes on their mistaken assumptions as well as
methodology. But in the case of a Counterpunch editor a very lax standard
comes into effect. So when Frank states that opposing ALL foreign
intervention requires also being against Russian involvement, not only is
he lauded for an article that mainly accepts the "anti-imperialist's"
erroneous assumptions, but it is even cited as "proof" of a "sea change"
among the left.
I'm afraid I haven't noticed such a sea change myself, but hopefully I'm
wrong. If Joshua Frank's article is the best indication, however, I'm quite
> If that is not proof, I don't know what
>On 10/6/15 9:51 PM, A.R. G wrote:
>> Do others see a sea change in "anti-imperialist" attitude toward Syria
>> now? I can't tell if it's changing or I'm just around more people who
>> are against Assad.
More information about the Marxism