One of the catchphrases the SWP used to have is "earn the right to criticise". That's one thing the far left has signally failed to do in putting opposing Western intervention on the top of its Syria wishlist. They, and those like them should make sure they have made it clear, not in their own minds, but to the Syrian revolutionaries, that they're first priority is how to support the revolution before uttering word one about intervention. That's the ABC of Leninism.
I reproduce part of a discussion below with some Syrians, not stooges of the CIA, but people who want a revolution in their country. These are the people whose struggle you need to relate to, not the scabs of the Stop The War Coalition. And if you start by saying what a terrible thing the West is, they will chase you off. But there is hope. Robin in the post below points out,
"My talk of ‘infantile leftists’ does not include the entire left of course. Simon Assaf of the Socialist Workers, for instance, understands what’s happening. So does Max Blumenthal. And many others."
Syrian1: Robin , they have always been pro-assad, they used to come down to the protest outside the Syrian Embassy in London, at least on 2 occasions the police were alerted ..
There were only 1 or 2 of them, and Syrian2 on the 2nd occasion alerted the police,as they are scum bags who support this evil tyrant
Dick Gregory: I suspect that the SWP are being confused with the Stop The War Coalition. If it was the SWP they must have been more than usually inane in the way they expressed themselves, their leadership has been better (Assaf) and worse (Orr) on Syria, but have all said they were anti-Assad. Maybe Syrian2 rushed to judgement. Maybe they were carrying Stop The War literature and didn't realise how inappropriate it is.
Syrian1: Anybody who opposes Intervention in My opinion is pro-Assad , this is quite a broad definition, as non-intervention only serves Assad, I remember they were carrying literature against intervention ( this was a year ago i think)
Robin Yassin-Kassab: But yesterday, Dick, the SWP were waving 'stop imperial war' banners. even if they don't want intervention, why do they call it imperial war when it obviously isn't? is it the same failure of analysis that has cursed most of the left, or is it just a trendy lie to pose with?
Dick Gregory: They think they can combine both, but that stopping the supposed threat of British action was the priority. Hence the front page of their paper reading "Don't Bomb Syria."They are wrong, but they might be capable of listening to reason, which is the difference with the real pro-Assad crowd.
I've just seen that the International Socialist Network/ Socialist Resistance statement reads in part,
"Alongside the Stop the War Coalition, we will continue to campaign against intervention in Syria"
so I've left the comment where I saw it:
'Could just be replaced with the three words: Arm The Rebels
Should read "alongside the scabs of the Stop the War Coalition".'
One of the catchphrases the SWP used to have is "earn the right to criticise". That's one thing the far left has signally failed to do in putting opposing Western intervention on the top of its Syria wishlist. They, and those like them should make sure they have made it clear, not in their own minds, but to the Syrian revolutionaries, that they're first priority is how to support the revolution before uttering word one about intervention. That's the ABC of Leninism.
I reproduce part of a discussion below with some Syrians, not stooges of the CIA, but people who want a revolution in their country. These are the people whose struggle you need to relate to, not the scabs of the Stop The War Coalition. And if you start by saying what a terrible thing the West is, they will chase you off. But there is hope. Robin in the post below points out,"My talk of ‘infantile leftists’ does not include the entire left of course. Simon Assaf of the Socialist Workers, for instance, understands what’s happening. So does Max Blumenthal. And many others."
Syrian1: Robin , they have always been pro-assad, they used to come down to the protest outside the Syrian Embassy in London, at least on 2 occasions the police were alerted ..
There were only 1 or 2 of them, and Syrian2 on the 2nd occasion alerted the police,as they are scum bags who support this evil tyrant
Dick Gregory: I suspect that the SWP are being confused with the Stop The War Coalition. If it was the SWP they must have been more than usually inane in the way they expressed themselves, their leadership has been better (Assaf) and worse (Orr) on Syria, but have all said they were anti-Assad. Maybe Syrian2 rushed to judgement. Maybe they were carrying Stop The War literature and didn't realise how inappropriate it is.
Syrian1: Anybody who opposes Intervention in My opinion is pro-Assad , this is quite a broad definition, as non-intervention only serves Assad, I remember they were carrying literature against intervention ( this was a year ago i think)
Robin Yassin-Kassab: But yesterday, Dick, the SWP were waving 'stop imperial war' banners. even if they don't want intervention, why do they call it imperial war when it obviously isn't? is it the same failure of analysis that has cursed most of the left, or is it just a trendy lie to pose with?
Dick Gregory: They think they can combine both, but that stopping the supposed threat of British action was the priority. Hence the front page of their paper reading "Don't Bomb Syria."They are wrong, but they might be capable of listening to reason, which is the difference with the real pro-Assad crowd.
I've just seen that the International Socialist Network/ Socialist Resistance statement reads in part,
"Alongside the Stop the War Coalition, we will continue to campaign against intervention in Syria"
so I've left the comment where I saw it:
'Could just be replaced with the three words: Arm The Rebels
Should read "alongside the scabs of the Stop the War Coalition".'
There were only 1 or 2 of them, and Syrian2 on the 2nd occasion alerted the police,as they are scum bags who support this evil tyrant
Dick Gregory: I suspect that the SWP are being confused with the Stop The War Coalition. If it was the SWP they must have been more than usually inane in the way they expressed themselves, their leadership has been better (Assaf) and worse (Orr) on Syria, but have all said they were anti-Assad. Maybe Syrian2 rushed to judgement. Maybe they were carrying Stop The War literature and didn't realise how inappropriate it is.
Syrian1: Anybody who opposes Intervention in My opinion is pro-Assad , this is quite a broad definition, as non-intervention only serves Assad, I remember they were carrying literature against intervention ( this was a year ago i think)
Robin Yassin-Kassab: But yesterday, Dick, the SWP were waving 'stop imperial war' banners. even if they don't want intervention, why do they call it imperial war when it obviously isn't? is it the same failure of analysis that has cursed most of the left, or is it just a trendy lie to pose with?
Dick Gregory: They think they can combine both, but that stopping the supposed threat of British action was the priority. Hence the front page of their paper reading "Don't Bomb Syria."They are wrong, but they might be capable of listening to reason, which is the difference with the real pro-Assad crowd.
I've just seen that the International Socialist Network/ Socialist Resistance statement reads in part,
"Alongside the Stop the War Coalition, we will continue to campaign against intervention in Syria"
so I've left the comment where I saw it:
'Could just be replaced with the three words: Arm The Rebels
Should read "alongside the scabs of the Stop the War Coalition".'
No comments:
Post a Comment