ShapesInMist

4

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.

https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011

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

4

ShapesInMist wrote (edited )

I think that's a cop out argument, and it was simple power dynamics at play - the powerful people at the top of USSR society were the precursors of modern Russia's oligarchs. And most of them come from the same families.

Modern russia became an oligarchy as a result of the 1990s and privatisation of every sphere of life in Russia. It was treated like a goldrush in the capitalist west.

This basically provided the grounds for oligarchs to buy up the entire economy.

Wealth inequality was much, much less in the Soviet Union compared to modern day Russia. After capitalist restoration was when inequality spiraled to the ridiculous state it is.

The richest slice of Russian society has doubled its wealth in the past 20 years, while almost two-thirds of the population is no better off and the poor are barely half as wealthy as they were when the Soviet Union fell, according to researchers.

Experts at Moscow's Higher School of Economics (HSE) found that the purchasing power of the average Russian has grown by 45% since the early 1990s, but income disparity is widening by the year.

The report reinforces a widely held view that oligarchs got rich quick by snapping up the country's choicest assets in the turbulent post-Soviet period.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/11/russia-rich-richer-poor-poorer

14

ShapesInMist wrote (edited )

Representative democracy is not democracy.

I support direct democracy which is worker owned operation of private property and production.

I'm absolutely fine by getting there by any means necessary though.