was he actually an oppressive dictator or was this just more Western propaganda?
all I know about him is that he liberated Iran from the extreme fundamentalist reactionaries, and that country was in a much worse situation at the time as far as "level of oppressiveness" goes. Just for that he seems like a good guy to me.
Is there something I'm missing about the objective narrative here?
was he actually an oppressive dictator or was this just more Western propaganda?
If he was a dictator, he was one of the greatest dictators the Middle east has seen.
He encouraged ethnic and sectarian violence and massacred socialists and communists because they might threaten his rule. He was also fascinated with Hitler, and funneled a great deal of cash to his family.
Hafez Al-Assad was the better ba'athist.
also violently suppressing reactionary Kurdish nationalism was his goal, ethnic violence was just a side effect.
Looking how KRG and Barzani has turned out, you have to admit he had something of a point.
He gassed many Kurds I believe
explain how this is bad though.
r u serious m8
It wasn't ethnic violence though. See
It's not ethnic violence in the same way that Israel's shelling are not ethnic violence. Targeting civilian population to "take out da turrurists" is America tier.
Not sure about Hitler, but you are right about Hafez.
I was completely wrong about the Hitler part, looking it up makes it clear it was obvious US propaganda for the Iraq war.
by that logic using physical violence against Nazis is also ethnic violence. why don't you just admit you are Holla Forums in disguise already?
ironic coming from someone who is most likely a first worldist pacifist succdem
There is no moral or unjust violence, there is just violence. We should get rid of it for the sake of humanity.
Saddam's targets were violent Kurdish reactionaries and nothing more.
If attacking them is Kurdish genocide, then killing Nazis is anuddah shoah. I'm just taking your stupid logic to its natural conclusion
im sorry but what the fuck is happening in this thread
Why are we making excuses for Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds?
He massacred Socialists and Communists. What is the purpose of this 'Kurdish nationalism' mental gymnastics?
Swap Saddam for Hitler and Kurds for Jews in your writing
Clearly its a polak, due to inability to avoid word filterers.
It's "anti-imperialism" to support fascistic dictators who happen to be enemies of america at one point (even if they might have worked with america previously). Watch them praise barzani should he ever become an enemy of the US
Why are tankies so historically illiterate
This 'anti-imperialism' bollocks is the international version of concern trolling
great how you have resorted to Republican sound-bytes in your arguments.
Quite obsession with the Jews and cultural Marxism you have there, "comrade".
We're talking about GASSING KURDS here… why the fuck are you calling me a republican? Am I a republican for being against genocide of ethnic minorities (with nationalistic tendencies or not) as a fucking rule? Why are you defending a man who gassed Kurds and massacred socialists?
you missed my point entirely.
you literally filtered out everything else I said and there all your attention at only those two words. if that's not ideology then I don't know what is.
I really hope he's a false flagging polyp. I really hope anti-imperialists are not this moronic
it's not about tendencies. his targets were specifically only people who subscribed to that ideology, not 'all kurds'
just like every socialist leader ever.
Could you provide some proofs for that
Do you critically support Islamic state too?
Looks like pure anti-imperialism.
nice projection. I'm waiting for you to admit you are a Nazi who unironically things Charlottesville was a free speech rally against white oppression.
Charlottesville was about statues moron, not freedom of speech.
can you at least try to read my entire posts?
Stop focusing on identity politics, fascist.
You're the one who thinks purging nationalism automatically equates to genocide.
Yo you can read all of my post too. I'm still waiting for proof of Saddam being a Socialist.
Personally I don't wanna go any further with this attempt to explain away the genocide of Kurds by this ridiculous equivalency to the Alt-Right. If you wanna know how people were okay with the escalation of the holocaust, it was weaselling exactly like this ideologue. This is the problem with historical illiteracy. Banality of evil I guess
Let's gas all the zionists lol
Lets just gas the jews, praise kek.
Truly I have finally seen your way.
Still waiting on proofs, bitch.
Yes. The answer is always yes.
You're talking about fucking human beings mate. Why are they so expendable to you?
Unless they call themselves Socialist. Then they're absolved of all crimes.
I mean it's not like the word socialist has to mean anything. It's not like it actually means anything. It's just that if a state chooses to call itself socialist, I'm going to proform all the mental gymnastics to allow myself to justify their actions, so I can be a contrarian and feel part of the lineage of the immortal science of "Marxist"-Leninism.
he threw babies out of incubators
That's even MORE retarded, the gas attacks killed more hundreds, thousands more civillians than they did armed forces. If "killing Nazis" was molotoving random homes to kill the inhabitants in a town that may have contained Nazis at one point, your argument may have some credence.
Following your logic, we should uncritically support Israel when they fire on crowds and bomb hospitals because "there were terrorist supporters there". Think of what you are saying.
Wasn't the "Saddam's forces KILL INNOCENT BABIES" thing found to be completely fabricated, even moreso than the defector WMD story?
Why won´t Americans truly acknoledge all the shit they do around the world? Why must we always be babying them and their shitty bomb first and then diplocacy thing. They are way past those 6 million the nazis got in the oven.
Yes Americans are a cancer on this earth. But in the context of this thread it's just pure whataboutsism. Maybe start another thread on it, would probs be a good thread
Agree but how many threads how you´ve seen here about the latest Ken Burns revision flick. How many about the genious of Ho-Chi-Minh?
Aren´t capitaists revisionistis?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Did you just ASSUME my IDEOLOGY?!??
Can we get the thread back on topic to Saddam "Insane in the membrane" Hussein?
True, sorry for that user
What to say? he was just defending his governent untill the Marines fuked him up
Sorry ignore pics I'm tired af
I'm gonna go fap or something
He was but the west didn't care about that, he got his shit fucked up because he decided to start buying oil with Euros instead of USD.
Read the thread
He was a western puppet that
He was a western puppet that was no longer useful.
No one cares about the Kruds. It's a fucking Third World anti-Communist military dictator ,no different to the Saudis or the Iranian Mullahs.
CIA funded Kurd gasser.
He was Nazbol
all these retards defending him when he was US backed in the open for the Iran Iraq war. They gave him billions of dollars in tendies. Sure they fucked him after the gulf wars were blatant imperial expansion and fucked the region royally and were a bad decision but that doesn't make Saddam a good guy.
Are you Iran-backed?
Anti-imperialist solidarity means defending "bad guys" sometimes
Still better than your first-worldist hand wringing
the nigga literally purged the left wing faction of his ba'athist party
Thing is we're materialists, not moralists. So yeah he was a bastard, but we still supported him against the US siege and invasion.
"Taha Muhi-Aldin Ma'roof Albarzanji, Vice-President and member of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council from April 1974 until April 2003, he was Kurdish, the one the back to the right is Omit Mithat Mubarek, the Last Minister of Health of Ba'athist Iraq, was also kurdish, when someone tells you Kurds were oppressed in Iraq just laugh."
Lena from Everlasting Summer
I was referring to the claim that he purged the left wing faction of the Ba'athist party, not the pic
Yes it was all western propaganda you stupid cunt. Stay woke.
Most of us don't think they are, I just don't think they're ebul or some shit.
There were a number of jewish generals who were made "aryan" in the nazi armies. The presence of uncle toms at high levels of governance is not evidence of anything.
That was a decision made on the battlefield by one soldier and was not directed by the regime.
Saddam was actually horrified that it happened, not least because he knew it would make him and international pariah.
tankies know he was cia
no he was just your run-of-the-mill Arab dictator. Better than the alternatives, but nothing to get excited over.
Puppet of the West when convenient, should have saw what was coming
Why do third-worldists constantly obssess over US backed capitalist dictators, yet proceed to take the same dictators' side when the US decides to dispose of an outdated asset?
I just don't think he was a cartoon villain, thats all.
The tankie boner for Assad says otherwise.
Assad isn't backed by America. A certain socdem "movement" is.
Assad was backed by the west until recently, same as Saddam. I'm not sure what is "socdem" about collectivizing the economy.
Yeah but they were imperialist babies so it's ok
He's backed by Russia, who are also imperialists.
Until we have multipolarity America is the only imperialist power that matters.
Read Lenin you revisionist
ML revolutions are impossible without multipolarity. We need a weak international system. This is basic stuff user.
But I don't want an ML revolution. I want a communist revolution.
==WELL== then how will your communist revolution work without a multipolar world? Are you some kind of Neocon Trotskyite?
How are you not a revisionist exactly? I'm sure Lenin would be rolling over in his grave if he wasn't a glorified wax figure
Wut? The point is that as a western worker I need the American empire to fail.
GOOGLE DAVID HITCHENS
He was a good man. Rest in peace the lion of Babylon.
Kurd roaches detected. Get out.
Never seen that pic before.
Awesome trigger discipline.
he was shit tier reactionary and oppresed kurdish minority
Confirmed for never having read lenin and being a total revisionist
I had a kurdish gf who liked being tied up.
What i.I'm trying to say is: I've found Kurds like being oppressed.
he was an authoritarian racially spooked capitalist dictator backed up by the U.S and S.U
he wasnt even a good baathist considering all the shit he did to religious minorities
Damn this is getting weird. I personally don't care who defeats America and neither should anyone else.
literally never said that. You, however, are unironically saying you support Russian imperialism. KYS my man
you dont know enough to have authority to speak on this topic
All I am saying is that the American empire needs to be defeated and forced to withdraw from the rest of the planet. You are strongly implying that believing this is somehow tantamount to supporting all other imperialist nations.
Defeated not be proletarian revolution but by another imperialist power, be it Russia, China etc. The fact is that you are supporting other imperialist powers under the auspices of creating a "multi-polar" world, as if having more competing bourgeois nations is going to lead to socialism, making you neither a marxist or a leninist. I'll reiterate: kys my man
By your own logic you are supporting an imperialist power to protect our current unipolar world (which has seen many failed revolutions, courtesy of the US.) There is no future for socialism if the US is allowed to remain the hegemonic power.
seems like fascism t b h
I'm sorry but the left has no future with a globally relevant America. That's just how it works. .We've had twenty years of American hegemony to learn this.
whats that got to do with north syria?
asides if one wishes to destroy capitalist U.S.A then isnt supporting socialists the logical answer?
All indications are that North Syria is a class collaborationist liberal state backed by American imperialism. Bookchin was a class collaborationist liberal. The ideology of "democratic confederalism" is class collaborationist and it doesn't mention the leading role of the working class at any point so it will be no more useful then liberal democracy it will be a cloak that hides the reality of bourgeoisie rule. The comprador bourgeoisie in North Syria will align with American imperialism because it supports their interests and it preserves their rule, even if they aren't a puppet. There are already reports of them using the threat of US air strikes to terrorize their enemies. The liberal US has spent millions to prop up their liberal Kurdish allies, given them weapons, aid, established military bases, etc they are deeply intertwined with US imperialism. I'd like to be proven wrong.
north syria or rojava or whatever you wish to call it isn't an american puppet however the us and their buddies are pushing for the Iraqi Kurds to separate most likely so that the Iraqi Kurds(which for the most part are shit tier liberals)will somehow seize control over rojava
also reminder that the PKK is not the same as the peshmerga and all those other right wing/neo-liberal Kurdish nationalist groups
Only if you equate support of proletarian revolution with support for US hegemony, you mong. To simply chalk up failure of revolutions to the US is idealistic and not based on any material analysis. It's especially more absurd considering all you want to do is replace one capitalist hegemony with another instead of abolishing capitalist hegemony all together. You're not so much as socialist as you are an anti-burger larper
DFSNS has collectivized their economy. I don't see how any aspect of that is "class collaborationist". Your entire post is based on pure ignorance tbh
I seriously doubt they would be able to seize DFSNS, especially since PUK is friendly to DFSNS.
You accuse me of ignorance. What do you know of Bookchin? What do you know of democratic confederalism? Bookchin is one of the most vehement class collaborationist there is. You are just making things up by claiming they "collectivized their entire economy" and exaggerating rather then providing any argument.
but since rojava is allied with the states and since the states is now pushing for a independence vote in Kurdistan they could easy just merge both the governments (if they consent of course)
then all you'd need is a small purge and boom Neo-liberal Kurdistan
I've actually read books like Ecology of Freedom and Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization (Apo), which is probably more then you've ever read or ever will read about communalism or democratic confederalism. Both books emphasize the importance of abolishing class as well as hierarchy and domination in general. You're completely ignorant on the DFSNS, and if you weren't you would know things like 75% of their economy is collectivized through municipal councils and the last 25% is personal property.
DFSNS is accepting military support from the US. This is different then being allies, which requires diplomatic and economic ties. Arguably, DFSNS is closer to Russia which actually does have diplomatic ties to it and has given humanitarian aid.
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧porky🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 and the rest of sayanims preaching racial jewish supremacy must die.
Then you know that Bookchin is a class collaborationist liberal. Rather you talk of idealistic notions of "abolishing class" or even more idealistic notions of abolishing "domination in general" is irrelevant to that - the idea of the class collaborationist to abolish class is to deny it exists to have "class unconsciousness" which is still class collaborationist liberalism.
That link you provided mentions the use of private property the whole thing is based upon liberalism populism, a third alternative to communism and capitalism (which completely denies the method of class analysis), etc. You should take a look at this
Capitalism with a human face:
"The method in Rojava is not so much against private property, but rather has the goal of putting private property in the service of all the peoples who live in Rojava" - Dr. Dara Kurdaxi
Neither bookchin or apo ever espoused working with the bourgeois or towards bourgeois interests. What Bookchin did say was that the proletariat wasn't inherently revolutionary, and that it was more revolutionary to reject your role as a prole in order to embrace something more than that, towards the abolition of your class and class society. People obsessed and fetishizing their own role as a worker don't work to abolish it so long as they're comfortable, in fact taking pride in being a "good worker". This is a much more nuanced and entirely different opinion than "class collaborationism". It clearly states in the article:
i.e. personal property, not private property. Flag related
Nor do liberals. Liberals don't espouse working with the bourgeoisie but rather they deny that they exist as a separate class.
Which is a complete denial of class struggle and of the leading role of the working class as I already mentioned.
A ridiculous notion, people have bills to pay, and family members to support, they cannot just deny their role as a prole. People are born into being a proletariat, where they have nothing to sell but their labour power it is not some state of mind that you can just wish a way like utopian idealist. Class unconciousness can only serve the bourgeoisie.
A ridiculous notion, which could only come from a bourgeoisie liberal that is completely disconnected from the struggle of the working class. This is the kind of fucking disgusting worthless liberalism that blames the workers for their own plight - "they were too concerned with being a good worker"
It doesn't clearly state anything, the very phrase "traditional private property" is liberal obscurantism which obscures things behind the "traditional" phrase. What is stated clearly however is that the method in Rojava is not against private property as previously described.
Yes perhaps you should read a fucking book, e.g you should look into something about class analysis
Bookchin and Apo don't deny the existence of class either you mong. Rejecting the teleological argument that revolution is inevitable is not the same thing as denying class struggle. There's a difference between someone who works but wants more to their life then just being a worker and someone who works but embraces their role as purely just that. One wants to move beyond their role while the other wants simply to find contentment in their position as a lower class. Bookchin actually worked in foundries and factories for over a decade agitating for labor unions, which is probably more then you've ever done in relation to class struggle. I'm not sure if you're trolling or just retarded. It clearly states what they are referring to as private property, in this sense amounting to personal property. Your issue is purely a semantic one, not based on any material analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if the only work you've ever read is the manifesto.
Bookchin does deny numerous aspects of the class system as already described. Apo is imprisoned, so now Bookchin is all that is relevant.
He didn't deny just that, but also the revolutionary role of the proletariat which was the actually important issue.
All you have are wants and ideas, this is pure idealism
Good for him, but it should be asked what that experience led him to do. It led him to reject all aspects of class, according to his own words and to look for anything to do with issues other then class.
Yes, I see your hand waiving about the difference between personal and private property. That doesn't change anything.
Everything I said is based upon materialist analysis. I have consistently rejected the ridiculous idealism presented here.
I am getting tired of these ceaseless ad hominems. I am well read in the sinister, totalitarian works of Marxists (I am reading through Lenin's collected works right now if you really want to know).
"I regard Marxism as the most sinister and the most subtle form of totalitarianism." - Bookchin
Denying the inevitability of revolution is not denying the existence of class or the exploitation of lower classes by the ruling class. This doesn't at all amount to class collaborationism as you implied. Apo is actually more relevant then ever since his imprisonment, writing the majority of his theoretical works in prison. DemCon was created in his prison cell. There's no difference between denying the teleological role of the proleariat and rejecting them as the "revolutionary class" . This is not to say that proles cannot be revolutionary, but they are not guaranteed to be and it doesn't dismiss the revolutionary potential of other lower classes. The observation that he made from his time in said factories orgnanizing is that once reasonable conditions were secured, workers did not desire more than that. They didn't seek to abolish their exploitation completely. Wants and desires is not "idealism" . Material conditions inform these things, but the results of this are not universal. Some workers seek to abolish the system completely, but the majority didn't. Same material conditions but different reactions to it. It's not "hand waving" to point out that they mean personal property when they say private property. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to see that when they clearly explain in the article what they mean. Why are you so obsessed with the semantics? You accuse me of idealism but don't qualify what's "idealism" about pointing out that your argument is purely a semantic one. There's nothing "materialist" about your argument. So you're one of those "marxists" that reads Lenin before marx? Bookchin in criticizing marxism is not outright rejecting the work of marx, but rejecting those that pretend to represent his ideas and do so very poorly. Marx himself spent most of his time critizing other socialists and those that called themselves "marxists" than writing theory, and rightfully so.
Saddam's baathism is revisionist baathism
OG baathism or nasserism is alright tho
also dont forget about gaddafi's third international theory
Even nasser jailed communists
The US also funded Iran
got any sauce for that claim pasta ?
I can't find any sources quickly online but I'm pretty certain it's discussed in "Nasser, the Last Arab". Initial crackdown was grouped in with the crackdown on the Muslim brotherhood in 1954 and a follow up, more focused crackdown on just communists in 1958. Khrushchev even personally tried to convince Nasser to lift his ban on the Communist Party but he was dead set on it.
I dont understand why everyone on this board shills for him so much. He's an authoritarian sucdem at best and an actual fascist at worse: en.wikipedia.org