Why are MLs so anti-YPG?

Wtf I love imperialist puppets now.

What if I tell it's possible to defend the YPG but also internally critisize their revisionism and their collaboration with imperialism and be worried about the dangers such an alliance could bear?

Anti-revisionists don`t like nationalism,fascism nor american imperialism.

I agree there are some great problems with the YPG, and that the USA is using them as a tool.
But for the moment the had not opposed the Assad goverment.
And are the only socialist group in Syria with posibilities of winning.
So I think that although the people that say the USA suspporting them is not bad and that imperialism is a meme, are retarded, for now I support the YPG as the socialist group in Syria.

daily reminder that Lenin recieved aid from Germans.
the USSR did some extremely pragmatic shit, siding with bourgeois fucks in the entire world, like Kuomintang. don't play purity games.

Imperial Germany can hardly be considered imperialist power, especially considering that priori to Bismark losing his power they did not even seek colonial possessions.

the eternal social chauvinist strikes again

There is literally nothing wrong with 'revisionism' Lenin himself was a Kautsky-ite, while Marx explicitly said he was not a Marxist.

Anglo pls.

Except Germans were preparing to establish socialism and to crush weimar republic.
Instead of socialism Germany got Hitler.

Read "State and revolution" or "The Renegade Kautsky" to now how Lenin viewed Kautsky revisionism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

Are you taking the fucking piss?

Again, post-Bismarck era policies. He was opposed personally to colonial expansionism for reason.

Also, MLs tend to fall back into the empty spooks of international law ie. Muh national self determination, which is weird considering Baathist Syria always was an ethnonationalist authoritarian state that treated its Kurdish population as Colonial subjects. Part of it is the Risk/ Cold War mentality, division of the world into 'imperialist' and 'anti imperialist' blocks that are indistinguishable in practice. For now, Rojava is becoming a center for the international left, you have militias of French and British trade unionists, Turkish Communists and Greek revolutionaries training and fighting in Syria right now. The left needs to stop looking at things through a 20th century state centered framework, the revolution is made by people, not states.

Rojava might not be perfect, but There is a genuine and quite interesting social movement going on there, lots of opportunities for the international left. I can't understand why Marxists would side with capitalist States that are not leftist in any way shape or form instead

They are annexing land from Syria for the benefit of empire. Their "socialism" is entirely notional.
It's like the equivalent of someone supporting Israel back in the day because of muh kibbutzes (which of course the USSR did, clearly one of their biggest foreign policy mistakes)

The SDF is not annexing land from Syria, they have nothing against the Syrian state per se as long as they let them keep their confederal organisations. Besides Kurds and Assyrians had lived in that territory millennia before the modern Syrian state was a thing. Are you saying they should resign themselves to arab colonialism, and subject themselves to the Syrian state out of an abstract commitment to 'anti imperialism'?

Ah yes, the old "we used to live here thousands of years ago" argument. I take it you are a card-carrying zionist as well then?
Compare Kurdish inhabited areas on this map to control of SDF. It is absolutely annexation.
And if you are going to say "but the land is controlled by the multi-ethnic SDF!" then you have no reason to support them because the SDF is an explicit US proxy with absolutely no connection to socialism, notional or otherwise.

The German government that sent Lenin to Russia certainly was not planning to establish socialism.

oh shit forgot to post map

I honestly don't understand you people. To suggest that the SDF is an American proxy because they receive American aid ignores the long history of recipients of this kind of aid promptly become mortal enemies of America. Just look at the Soviets, the Viet Minh, and the Mujahideen. This is proof that you can take aid from America without being their puppets. Add to that the fact that the SDF has fought against other American/Saudi/Turkish backed forces in the FSA, taken Russian aid, collaborated with Assad on multiple occasions, and is waging a geurilla war against NATO member Turkey, it becomes clear that they are not simply American puppets.

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that the SDF may be using the Americans just as much as the Americans are using them.

Is the PKK an US proxy too? Really I feel like you are tryin to apply an overly abstract Leninist state based framework to 4th generation non linear war. You are obviously going to reach absurd conclusions. It's not really fair to equate Rojava with Israel, for one, there isn't any apartheid or ethnic cleansing going on. And what would you suggest the inhabitants of Syria do? Should they read Lenin, lay down their arms and just let jihadists fuck them in the name of the great game of anti imperialist RISK?

i'm not though?

Fucking roses

You seem to think that opponents take some sort of abstract stance on principle - and that as such we must also reject any organisation that has received any amount of aid.
The opposite is in fact true - these cases are quite clearly differentiated by the circumstances, the amount of aid received, and whether or not the organisation in question was previously extant.
Like there's clearly such a massive difference between the US sending weaponry to the USSR during the biggest outbreak of war the world has ever seen - and the US establishing SEVEN military bases on a small section of land without consent of the state.
There are plenty of reports saying exactly that. Clearly it's not of the same scale but don't pretend it doesn't happen.
Collaborate with Syrian state perhaps, rather than the fucking USA? It's not as though Russia couldn't provide the same protection.
The reason that they don't is because the YPG and the USA share the same goal - the breakup of Syria.

last quote for

The YPG is also collaborating with the Syrian state, btw. And why the fixation on muh territorial integrity?

They are working with both but what's your point anyway? Russia is an imperialist power too, working with them isn't better than working with the US.

Again, there is a clear failure to actually distinguish between things. Just like "the US supported the USSR as well" is entirely dishonest in its discounting of the specifics - so is saying "russia and the US both support the SDF" when there is such a gulf in what this "support" entails. Also Russia are imperial actors in Syria as well so I don't know why you are using them as some sort of litmus test.
Total nonsense statement. People don't support Syrian state because "muh america is bad and russia good". They support it because it is an extant nation-state under imperial assault. End of. Doesn't matter who the aggressor is. In this case Russia happens to be aiding Syria (for its own benefit) - but you can see that their aims aren't totally aligned. Syrian line is "we will retake every inch" (as it should be) - Russians are forever begging them to sit down with US and reach a settlement.
Russia's aims are to secure existence of Syrian state, but they don't particularly care if the US wants to cleave vast swathes of this country away, or fundamentally change constitution.
Support is for Syrian state - and Russia IN SO FAR as they aid the goals of said state.

Why should leftists unconditionally support the Syrian State? Baathism was originally a socialist-nationalist ideology, but modern day Syria is not a socialist state, specially not after Bashar's neoliberal reforms. And how can you defend their treatment of the Kurdish minority? Rojava was purposely underdeveloped and exploited under the Baathist regime. Kurdish cultural rights were restricted.

Russian imperialism is relevant because it shows that the whole thing is an imperialist proxy war.
What's the point in preserving unity of the Syrian state? Kurds in Syria have every right to demand autonomy or even secession.

Because it's under imperial assault! And most likely, considering what board we're on - by your country.
Can only imagine the sort of discussions that would have gone on with ultra-lefts like you during the 20th century. "umm… why should we uncritically support the african people, most independence movements aren't even socialist"

What relevance does that have?
What's the point of defending states that are under attack by your own country? Shouldn't need to explain that to anyone who considers themselves of """the left""".

And what about the Mujahideen and the Viet Minh? I have never seen any one of you guys address either of those two cases.

And why does the Syrian government have the right to retake every inch? Do the people in the North not have the right to self determination and self governance?

It can, but for example Japanese and German empires were by their nature anti-imperialist(Japanese liberated their fellow asians form anglo-imperialism). Austria-hungary was even more anti-imperialist force in the great war as it was completely opposed to nationalism and Ottomans were pan-Islamist opposed to nationalism as well.

Entre was the only imperialist faction seeking to preserve the status quo in ww1.

I'm actually from a third world Latin American country. It's funny how Internet tankie LARPers fetishise the 3rd world in the abstract but don't give a fuck about the people who actually live there. It's all about muh anti imperialist RISK for you guys.

What about them? They were good in so far as they opposed America.

Well you can account for support for the Viet Minh with the whole, you know, biggest conflict in human history thing. And what is the relevance of the mujahideen? Clearly no one on here supports them? If you're peddling "blowback" bollocks - the goals of jihadists have remained in line with those of the US since funding of said mujahideen.

You can't be this dense.
If the Kurds have a right to self-determination then it is only in the tiny percentage of Syrian territory that they reside in, not the huge area they have carved from Syria for their masters. Why aren't you asking why Kurds fail to respect "right to self determination" of Arabs whose land they conquer?

And you speak perfect English and post on fucking Holla Forums. Yeah, really speaking for the masses there.
Its actually about actively opposing our own nations' imperialism.

Yeah, 1st world tankie LARPers with their dogmatic Leninist ideology represent the True voice of the 3rd world masses.

lmao where did I say that. Difference is I'm not claiming to represent them. You are, however, despite clearly being an exceptionally muh privileged member of such a society. You are the only one being dishonest here.

they're ok tbh

The only people who have a blanket opposition to the YPG are literal memes like Unruhe.

Most people just have criticisms YPG, which is GOOD. No movement, no matter how theoretically leftist it might be, should be exempt from critical analysis.

Well I mean Syria is entirely the creation of 19th century colonialism, so imo the legitimacy of it existing as a country is questionable. In addition it's pretty obvious that here is quite a bit of domestic opposition to Assad, hence why so many Arabs are working with the YPG and why there's a civil war in the first place. This being the case, the Kurds and their Arab allies clearly don't want to live under Assad, and they have the right to make that choice.

Also

Oh okay I guess the US has spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting itself then? Was 9/11 an inside job? This must be some 10^3859379002 dimensional chess.

The fact is that the Mujahideen, like the Vietnamese, were temporary allies of convenience, who have turned against their former beneficiaries. This isn't new or remarkable, it happens all the time in geopolitics, so get your head out of your ass.

You also still haven't addressed all the examples of the YPG doing their own thing contrary to American interests including being at war with a fucking NATO power and essential American ally and the fact that they continue to work closely with America's supposed target of regime change. Not to mention their hostility with the KRG, which they should be allies with if they were what you say they are.

The fact is that their behaviour simply doesn't fit your narrative, and the and ONLY thing that supports your view is the fact that the Americans are giving them aid, which we have already seen doesn't necessitate that they be completely under American control.

When Holla Forums says "revisionism" they actually mean "opportunism"

Yes. It's called the strategy of tension. Also the military industrial complex.
War on terror has allowed US to:
etc. etc.

US has profited greatly from "terrorists". Do you really think if the US was so opposed to these people they would be arming them in Syria?
lmao you are uneducated. This clearly isn't contrary to American interests seeing as the US sends in troops to deter Turkish forces every time this issue flares up.
deliberate misrepresentation that totally undestates issue. America has seven airbases, thousands of troops, and total alignment of interests with SDF/YPG. Idea that this is "aid" is hilarious. It's annexation, nothing more, nothing less.
Right OK. So seeing as how literally every single country in Africa is a "creation of colonialism" - is it acceptable for western powers to go in and carve it up as they see fit. Will fine "leftists" such as yourself shrug your shoulders and say "it wasn't a real country anyway"?
Or maybe, just maybe, that sort of attitude is what creates the problem in the first place?

Then why are they not backing both sides in Syria? Or Ukraine? They clearly want a particular result from these kinds of conflicts, the aren't just making war for its own sake, they have an agenda.

Wow I didn't know losing control of Afghanistan and huge swathes of Iraq and endangering their allies like Egypt counted as "benefits" from the American perspective. I don't doubt that they make use of these groups when they can, but to think that they themselves are American proxies is ridiculous, if this were the case then they wouldn't bother fighting them, and if they were only interested in war profiteering then they wouldn't have pursued policies of regime change in Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Afghanistan, but instead simply armed and supported both sides like they did in the Iran-Iraq war.

Right so now are you suggesting that the US is supporting the PKK in Turkey? Clearly this just means that the YPG fighting ISIS is helpful for the Americans, and they are willing to tolerate the threat to Turkey to do so. That being said it is clear that they don't want Turkey and the YPG to butt heads, which is why the fact that they are proves that the YPG is not simply an American proxy.

And how long do you think those bases would last of the YPG turned on those troops?

Also again, if the YPG were an American proxy then why are they not fighting Assad? Instead they are fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda who according to you are also American proxies. Do you really believe that the Americans would sit there and make their two "proxies" fight each other while largely ignoring the actual target of regime change? The Kurdish behaviour is consistent only with American opposition to ISIS but runs counter to American interests in practically every other area.

They are "backing" pretty much every side in Syria save the government. "FSA", "rebel" jihadists, YPG, Turkey, every gulf state, Jordan, Iraq etc.
What the fuck are you on about? In 2000, both nations were firmly away from american sphere of influence, hostile to its interests - 3 years later and they are puppet states.
Your precious "YPG" would be wiped off the face of the earth, America would allow Turkey to move in and annex the region with their good old friends the "FSA"

And the fact that they aren't backing the government means that they are trying to achieve a specific result, which ISIS and the YPG are opposing, since the YPG is fighting the Turks and collaborating with Assad.

First of all you are contradicting yourself, since you claimed that the Taliban, as the successors of the Mujahideen were American proxies. Now you are saying that Taliban controlled Afghanistan was free of American influence. These can't both be true. Second, the Afghan government is a shaky mess to say the least, and the Taliban control much of the country.

As for Iraq, it's probably more firmly within the Iranian sphere of influence than the US, which is why a large portion of their military force in the form of the popular mobilization brigades are commanded by Iranian officers.

More likely they would turn to Assad and Russia, which they have already been doing to some degree, and then continue the geurilla campaign they've been waging against the Turks for the past 20 years. The YPG knows the situation they're in, they know that the US wouldn't dare wholesale invade Syria for fear of the Russian reaction and a military quagmire. They also know that Assad will immediately side with them in the event of a Turkish invasion. This means that they have more leverage against the US than you give them credit for. The US needs them more than they need the US, since they can always cozy up to Assad or Russia, and had fought without US support for years. The US meanwhile has no other option in Syria to fight ISIS, which is why they attempted to control the FSA before turning to the Kurds.

It's as simple as this. America is clearly pursuing a policy of regime change in Syria, and yet the YPG has and continues to work with the Assad regime. Meanwhile, they have also continued the PKK's geurilla campaign in Turkey, a key US ally.

If the YPG were American puppets, it makes absolutely NO sense that they would be collaborating with America's enemies and waging war against their allies.

I don't disagree with that. There is an end "goal" in all of these wars - usually one that will beget more conflict. Was merely correcting your erroneous idea that the US doesn't support conflicting groups - they do.
In 2003, Iraq was an entirely hostile state with full control of its own oil reserves, now it effectively does what the US tells it.
You are correct to say that there is a large Iranian influence, and hopefully that will increase, but you are fooling yourself if you think that that takes primacy over US goals in region, and that US will do nothing if Iran tries to increase influence. (Most likely a spontaneous military coup will occur)
No it's not. That goal was scrapped some time ago when it became clear people of Syria support the gov. Now their plan is partition/balkanization which is perfectly in line with US.
Here's a press conference where Macron and Trump say "we don't require Assad's departure"
youtube.com/watch?v=16ARLhT_u3g&feature=youtu.be&t=53m5s
It is clear that the US supports the YPG above Turkey atm - hence why US intervene to prevent any Turkish incursion.

Okay, so let's assume the Balkanization theory. It's pretty obvious that Assad is just as much of an imperialist stooge as anybody else, meaning that the people of Northern Syria have the choice between a decentralized quasi-socialist democratic republic in the SDF, and a neoliberal de-facto hereditary monarchy in Assad. Explain to me why the latter is preferable from a socialist perspective.

Please explain your reasoning here. I've already explained why aims of Syrian gov. do not align with any imperial power. Also find your use of "Assad" very illuminating.
Absolute fucking bizarro-world you live in when Assad, who says "we will retake every inch of Syria" against wishes of EVERY major power is a "stooge" but SDF with SEVEN US military bases on their small patch of territory are like totally socialist.

they also have russian bases, especially in afrin canton, are they russian shill? the reason they're taking US help is they are trying to survive, dozens of socialist revolutions have been drowned in blood it only makes sense for them to be pragamatic.

You are kidding yourself if you think "Rojava" is anything of the sort.
Do you think the regional bourgeoisie just upped and vanished?
Or that they were heroically overthrown in some struggle that somehow escaped attention of entire world?

well they are out of power,

Not at all. For one thing capitalism is enshrined in their constitution. Clearly the economy is barely functional right now and society is united round issue of combating daesh. See what happens when the fighting stops, and which section of this society the conveniently situated US bases take the side of.

Russia is the primary source of the Syrian government's diplomatic, military, and economic support. Support without which he wouldn't even be capable of fighting the war let alone winning it. Russia has spend a lot of blood and treasure keeping Assad in power, and they clearly have no intention of him being removed. Now, do you think Russia, infamous land of kleptocrat oligarchs and robber barons, would do this out of the goodness of their hearts? No, like any capitalist imperial power, they have specific interests. Assad, being entirely dependent on Russia to win the war, is subject to those interests.

The fact is that Assad can't win the war without Russia, and Russian oligarchs don't help anybody without expecting something in return, especially when you look at Russian petroleum interests already in Syria.

Also since you constantly being up American bases in Kurdish territory I'm sure you're aware of the Russian basses in SAA territory. By your logic this is proof that the Syrian government is a Russian proxy.

sauce?
now so they'r basically porky
WAR FOR SURVIVAL
yeah they're fighting a war for survival
do you think all the pkk fighters will just convert to ancaps?

Private property and capitalism are not equivalent, since co-ops form the basis of the Rojava economy. Not quite socialism, but still devoid of wage labour, alienation from the product of labour and capitalist control of the MoP.

Also Assad's policies are even farther from anything resembling socialism than the YPG, he swallowed the neoliberal pill in the 90s like everybody else.

hmmmmmmmmmm.

It quite clearly isn't "sabre rattling" seeing as Russia is constantly trying to bring Syria into peace talks but they continue assaults anyway.
You totally ignore the tiny difference of a previously existing independent nation state inviting a foreign power in - with a state essentially being created by a foreign power (because of course Rojava would not exist without US presence)

No. I think the new bourgeoisie in Rojava will want to curb the socialist elements of the economy, mild as they are. Some fighters (but not nearly all since most aren't motivated by ideology) will resist. The US will intervene on side of bourgeoisie. And all this is invited by a system which enshrines private property rights.

Read Marx, or maybe do some research about Yugoslavia's titanic unemployment rate..

This is some next-level shitposting.

Feudalism and slavery both have private property, but they aren't capitalism. Wage labour and capitalist control of the MoP, are the primary characteristics of capitalism, and they are missing from a MarkSoc system.

Rojava has been de-facto independent since the conflict started, well before the US intervened on their behalf. They weren't a US creation, the Kurds have been fighting for their statehood for decades.

Are they? For what reason are goods produced in a MarkSoc system, if not to be sold as commodities and the profits used to generate capital?
If the workers are still forced to compete among one another and sell their labor, isn't that too a form of wage labor?

Capitalism doesn't end when we all become capitalists. Nor if we all join co-ops for the purpose of producing commodities and accumulating capital.

Feudalism doesn't have private property at all, it has some sort of right of usufruct, but not specified through abstract legal institions but through personal relations between the peasent and the liege ("you get my protection, and I can draft you for my war exploits").

t. medieval history graduate

statistics about cooperatives and stories of workers working they're have shown that they are vast improvement, to traditional capitalist firms.

But it's still capitalism. I don't dispute coops are better than Walmart in the same way that social democracy is better than lolbertarianism, but in both cases we still have capitalism with the better alternative.

I think hesitant tankies can understand if the US is just giving weapons, but US bases within Rojava itself is very worrying even for YPG supporters like me. What are the Kurds supposed to do whenever the Americans start shit? Because they will sooner or later. There is no fallback plan if they want to remove America from the equation and physical violence is not an option. The more military presence the YPG relies on the more pressure they will recieve on doing shit that might conflict their goals.

those letting you know that the ultras are all retarded

but there is no surplus value extraction for profit there for no capitalism

I don't care about the YPG. It is the starry eyed infatuation that the international left has for it that is troubling.