All the lefties I know were excited about rojava/ aanes. I've never met a lefty in real life that was pro assad, not saying they don't exist, but like: fuck em, assad sucked.
I think the "left" they are talking about are more like tankies or at least socialists who lean towards authoritarianism.
I know some people in my local DSA who uncritically support the idea that Russia is incapable of imperialism and who probably would have supported Assad because they were an ally of Russia.
I know this probably comes across as "no true Scotsman", but I have a really hard time believing anyone who legitimately holds those views can also be socialist
Yeah, fuck 'em. This poor fellow is from Twitter, and unfortunately, there are definitely a bunch of brainrotted self-proclaimed 'leftists' there mourning Assad's fall and calling Rojava a CIA plot even now.
I hope Rojava prevails and perseveres.
What leftist is out there supporting Assad?
Those who think "left" is whatever Russia does
I call it geopolitical jetlag
Tankies, in other words
"people I disagree with", in other words
There are more than a few on lemmy.ml, of course.
Assad is a friend of Russia and enemy of the West. Therefore tankies support Assad.
Are the tankies in the room with you now?
Yeah, there's a bunch of them around, actually. Just look at the most downvoted comments and you'll find the clowns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campism
Campism is the belief that the world is divided into large, competing political groups of countries ("camps") and that people with left-wing politics should support one camp over the other camps.[1] Unlike nationalists, campists do not support any countries for reasons such as ethnicity or national identity. Instead, campists support their camp for ideological reasons, because they believe their camp promotes their ideology, such as socialism or anti-imperialism.
TIL, thank you!
I tried but couldnt parse this post. Idk whos side this guy is on and i dont know whos side he thinks im on. Very confusing lol.
"Assad falling is good, because Assad is a dictator. The left should be against dictators, yet many on Twitter proclaimed that supporting the dictator was Good Leftism, Actually.
Syrians and Ukrainians should be supported by the left. Just because Assad and Russia are enemies of the capitalist West doesn't mean that they should get a free pass from the left to oppress Syrians and Ukrainians.
Palestinians should be supported by Americans. Just because Israel is a nominal ally of the US doesn't mean that they should get a free pass from Americans to oppress Palestinians.
Reject tribalism. Embrace moral consistency."
Ahh i get it. But ive never heard a single person say assad was good for the left. Probably the tankies and the us left.
The tankie communities are definitely seeing the fall of Assad as a very bad thing. I was surprised at first, but then not surprised that they'd be supportive of dictator that aligns with Russia.
"yet many on Twitter proclaimed that supporting the dictator was Good Leftism"
Well this is news.
What's there to say. Twitter's a shithole.
Unfortunately, many people still use it to communicate and organize, some of whom do not belong in said shithole.
Given HTS historical ties to exteemist groups like Al Qaeda I do hope this is a good thing for all Syrians. Time will tell.
The best thing they could do is break Syria apart based on ethnic lines, and create a federated alliance. They could also do the anarchic strategy, especially since the rest of the world is in chaos. Relying less on industry might be an advantage.
Undoing the vestiges of colonialism is bloody work, but the current system of dictatorship/oil-cartel is hardly sunshine and roses for the locals.
I truly hope the people living there get to decide their future and the Kurds carve out a real state, not just autonomous zones that Turkey bombs at will. The way we abandoned them was disgusting after they led the fight on the ground against IS/Daesh.
Sadly though I don't think whoever grabs power will be eager to give up land and resources to competing factions. Hoping it doesn't end up this way, but I think ethnic conflict is going to be more likely than cooperation.
Idk that sounds a lot like just creating more regional division. At the end of the day they are all Syrian, regardless of religion or ethnicity. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say your solution won't work or is a bad idea, just a bit doubtful.
Most middle eastern borders were drawn by imperialist powers in an effort to cause division. They need to throw those borders out to avoid constant war.
I mean sure, but redrawing them based on ethnic backgrounds isn't the way to go either.
Is this X implying that Zelensky oppressing the Ukrainian people?
Yes he fucking is, as is every bourgeois politician, including putin. And don't forget the gratitude HTS expressed towards the Zionists. The Syrian revolution had an immense progressive potential in 2011-13 but nowadays I'm just glad the war is over but at the same time I'm concerned about what happens next to Kurds, since HTS also had a substantial backing from the genocidal irredentist Ankara government.
*tweet
I'll just leave this here.
Pretty much every geopolitical action we take is for our oligarch's profit. Sabotaging regimes that wouldn't be friendly to exploitation, installing regimes friendly to resource extraction for a song, defending good business partners doing genocide and human rights violations, etc.
Don't mistake a broken clock like helping Ukraine with benevolence. We never have been benevolent.
We didn't even enter WW2 as some benevolent heroes, our pacific fleet was decimated, the war came to us so we went to war to fight back. The US practiced eugenics prior to and even post WW2 though involuntary sterilization of those seen as undesirables. Had the Axis not thankfully committed the greatest strategic blunder of the 20th century, we wouldn't have for a lot longer, if at all.
"Reject campism"
Allonzee: "But what about the BAD camp???"
What part of 'reject campism' did you not understand
I'm not refuting the point, I'm adding to it.
Russia, the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and China are all the worst of actors. Moral consistancy means being on none of their sides.
Your immediate response to someone pointing out that campism is bad whether it's American (pointing out Israel) or anti-American (pointing out Russia and Assad) is to go on a rant about America Bad(tm), including the curious inclusion of eugenics as if that wasn't supported in most corners pre-WW2.
Not sure that's 'adding to the point' so much as 'using it as a springboard to do the exact opposite'.
I don't think you'd find many here overtly in Russias or China's camps, but there are still many in the US's in the social media primarily used by the west.
Part of being against campism is speaking out against the camp you're physically in and more expected to go rah rah for out of nationalism.
I don’t think you’d find many here overtly in Russias or China’s camps, but there are still many in the US’s in the social media primarily used by the west.
Man, even putting Lemmy, where we currently are, aside, you can still find plenty of very loud and very popular nuts in places like Reddit and Twatter who are full-throated in their support of Russia and China. I could show you posts all day long, and have depression and fatigue set in long before I ran short of examples.
Part of being against campism is speaking out against the camp you’re physically in and more expected to go rah rah for out of nationalism.
So part of being against campism is picking a camp to be extra against because you were born there.
Believe me when I say, I'm an anticapitalist who believes all lower conflicts are either created by or heavily informed by the global class occupation being waged by the 30k or so hundred-million-plusinaires families spreading global misery through their greed disease, infecting world governments with their venom.
If you want to define me as in a camp, my camp is against those 30k global oligarchs with no allegiance to any nation they exploit, only their sociopathic ego scores. That includes Putin and Xi and Trump.
And yes, you need to extra proactively reject the camp you were born in, because the default is to assume you support where you're from out of tribalism and selfish self-interest overriding moral consistancy.
Man, unironically, I do believe you. I don't think you're some fuckwad who uses 'anti-imperialism' as an excuse to play apologist for other imperialists. I've seen you around. I could be wrong, but you don't seem like the type.
But at the same time, you do have to understand how it looks when someone says "America supporting oppressors is bad, and Russia supporting oppressors is bad", and your response is to bring out the list of grudges on America, and then to say that it's justified because there aren't many supporters of Russia and China 'on here' (when both on the source of the original pic and on this site itself, there very much are), looks more like an attempt to focus the discussion on 'bad camp'.
When the discussion is started based on "Bad Camp being Bad does NOT justify supporting other shitheads", can you see how an immediate response of "I want to emphasize that Bad Camp is REALLY bad!" comes off as grating?
And yes, you need to extra proactively reject the camp you were born in, because the default is to assume you support where you’re from out of tribalism and selfish self-interest overriding moral consistancy.
You need to be extra proactive in watching for unintended campism in yourself and in your statements. Not extra proactive in the sense of disproportionate focus or changing every discussion to how the camp you were born in is Really Bad. Otherwise you're just replacing the standard of beating the drum of "My camp is bad, but THEIR camp is worse!" with "Their camp is bad, but MY camp is worse!" in practical effect.
Thank you for that, I appreciate it. I see where you're coming from.
From my perspective, rejecting campism starts at home. With rejecting the bad actor camp that, if you don't actively reject it, can be seen as a self-serving bias.
An American saying Russia bad, which it clearly is, means far, far less than an American saying America bad, or a Russian saying Russia bad, because if you speak against another country, it's easy to be perceived as just being a loyal tribalist.
It's more powerful to reject the camp you'll feel the consequences of than to more loudly attack another bad actor or actors, as that can easily be seen as campism.
I'm glad we could have a reasonable conversation about this.
As to your point about rejecting campism starts at home, I think we're in partial agreement. It is important to reject one's own 'camp', as failing to do so is... well, literally just campism. And we 'in' a certain camp are often better poised to examine and denounce certain aspects of our own camps, and insofar as we are gifted with that perspective, we have a very strong and serious moral duty to do so.
I'm just wary of the idea that we all 'end up' with the duty to denounce our own camp extra hard, rather than the duty to police ourselves and ensure that the moral failings of our own 'camp' don't escape our notice or our condemnation. We can't control whether others' condemnations are correct in target or intensity; only our own.
Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
