You must log in or register to comment.


sudo wrote

I am a Leninist, and I don't support Assad - I don't think any Leninists do, save for the nitwit mods from /r/FULLCOMMUNISM. We do think that Syria is better off with Assad in charge, than an imperialist country like the US in charge, but recognizing that he's the lesser of two evils is not the same as supporting him.


SpiritOfTito wrote

This is the correct answer.

Likely those on full comm are being edgy and deliberately provocative.

But Assad is easily the least worst out of an awful bunch. Better Libya under Ghaddafi, better Saddam under Iraq than the 'democracy' and 'human rights' under US imperialism.


_ziq_ wrote

Because anything / anyone America hates must be awesome, apparently.


DeathToAmerica wrote

They love dictators, just so long as those dictators oppose US imperialism. But if said dictators get imperialist, well that's fine.


ShapesInMist wrote (edited )

I don't support Assad but the narrative the west tried to impose was that there were (Camerons famous commons quote) "60,000" democratic rebels to be armed and supported.

It turned out those rebels were mostly Al Nusra - Al qaedas shoot off.

I'd also argue the choice at this current time in Syria is not democratic Swedish-style social democracy or Assad.

It's Libyan/Iraq style collapse while different jihadi sects fight over the remains of the country or Assad.

Given that choice I hope for the benefit of the people in Syria that Russia wins the proxy war between the US/Russia in Syria.

Let's not forget that prior to the overthrow of Ghaddafi and under Ghaddafis leadership, Libya was the most successful African nation on the continent. It ranked highest in every sphere of social development, from the Human Development Index to education to healthcare. We now know his overthrow (from wikileaks) had nothing to do with human rights(TM) but Ghaddafi was working on a project to correct a pan-African currency called the African Dina which would be backed by Libyan gold. This currency would've vastly lifted the lives of Africans across the entire continent and posed a direct threat to European and American influence on the continent. No more slave labour coffee for pennies.

It's moronic to style yourself as a "supporter" of Assad but I definitely see him as the lesser evil to US imperialism and utter collapse of the country


hamjam5 wrote

I think it is completely ridiculous and off putting that leninists so often support the Assad government in Syria. The Assad regime has long engaged in systematic racism. It is an authoritarian oligarchy, with government supporting and supported oligarchs ruling over the country and profiting from the exploitation of workers.

It is, in summation, a racist nationalistic exploitative oligarchy. And there are communists supporting it? How preposterous.

Why should I trust leninists who support the people of Syria being ruled by a racist oligarch? Why should I think that they won't find a way to justify and support me being ruled by racists oligarchs as well? What the hell is even the point of being a communist if it ever at any times means supporting people being ruled by racist oligarchs?

Assad stands against U.S. imperialism you may say. Ok, but so did the Confederacy -- would you have supported them? So do many fascists in the US and europe -- would you support them? If the racist oligarchs of the Israeli state or Erdogan started taking a stand against U.S. imperialism, would you support either of those regimes as well?

And how is simply being opposed to U.S. imperialism enough to justify you supporting a regime that is inarguably a racist exploitative oligarchy?

Again, I can't emphasize enough how disconcerting it is to see supposed communists justify people being ruled by a racist oligarchy, and how much it makes me distrust what sort of governance they would thus be willing to justify with similar logic (especially concerning some of the things they have justified from past and present leninist states).