Syria: The enemy of your enemy is still not your friend/Syrie: l'ennemi de votre ennemi est toujours pas votre ami

English:

It has been 2 years since the  beginning of the internal conflict in Syria, and the situation doesn't seem to be improving. Overtures of peace are denied, car bombings and assassinations are a common reality, and each side is blaming the other. On the international Left there seems to be a consensus against Western intervention because such an action would only be a further expression of imperialist aspirations in the region. Further, there is highly critical and valid questioning over the nature of the Syrian opposition, mainly because it is split between theocratic Islamists like the al-Nusra Front and the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition. I tend to agree with many contemporaries on the Left that these alternatives to the Assad government are not what the Syrian people need, one is dedicated to the establishment of a reactionary theocratic regime while the other is dedicated to expanding the interest of liberalism in Syria.

However, many sections of the Left have gone a step beyond: they want to defend to Assad government either out of pure opposition to the West or because the regime has a history of being part of the anti-imperialist bloc. Those leftists need to remember a crucial aspect: the whole conflict began with the Assad regime cracking down on protesters. No matter how you might feel about the situation in Syria now, the original protests against Assad were in the context of the Arab Spring and completely valid. His is an autocratic state in the vein of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath regime that speaks in the rhetoric of socialism while allowing poverty and corruption to run rampant. Assad is committed to keeping his autocratic rule at any cost, and even though the opposition probably is responsible for much of the violence in the cities, the reaction by the Assad regime is no better.

As I said about Qaddafi when he fell, it's one thing to be against Western intervention, it is another thing entirely to defend a corrupt and autocratic regime simply because it is being targeted by the West. No to Western intervention, and no to Assad!

Français:

Il a été 2 ans depuis le début du conflit interne en Syrie, et la situation ne semble pas s'améliorer. Des ouvertures de paix sont niés, attentats à la voiture et les assassinats sont une réalité commune, et chaque côté est de blâmer l'autre. Sur la gauche internationale, il semble y avoir un consensus contre l'intervention occidentale car une telle action ne serait qu'une nouvelle expression des aspirations impérialistes dans la région. En outre, il est très critique et le questionnement valable sur la nature de l'opposition syrienne, principalement parce qu'il est divisé entre les islamistes théocratiques comme le Front al-Nusra et le soutenu par l'Occident Coalition nationale syrienne. Je suis d'accord avec beaucoup de ses contemporains sur la gauche que ces solutions de rechange au gouvernement d'Assad ne sont pas ce que le peuple syrien besoin, un est consacré à la mise en place d'un régime théocratique réactionnaire tandis que l'autre est consacré à l'expansion de l'intérêt du libéralisme en Syrie.

Cependant, de nombreuses sections de la gauche ont franchi une étape au-delà: ils veulent défendre au gouvernement Assad soit par pure opposition à l'Occident, soit parce que le régime a une histoire de faire partie du bloc anti-impérialiste. Ces gauchistes besoin de se rappeler un aspect crucial: tout le conflit a commencé avec le régime d'Assad sévir contre les manifestants. Peu importe comment vous pourriez vous sentir à propos de la situation en Syrie aujourd'hui, les manifestations contre Assad étaient d'origine dans le contexte du printemps arabe et tout à fait valable. Son est un état autocratique dans la veine du régime de Saddam Hussein Baas qui parle dans la rhétorique du socialisme, tout en permettant la pauvreté et la corruption à sévir. Assad s'est engagé à maintenir son régime autocratique à n'importe quel prix, et même si l'opposition est probablement en grande partie responsable de la violence dans les villes, la réaction par le régime d'Assad n'est pas meilleure.

Comme je l'ai dit à propos de Kadhafi quand il est tombé, c'est une chose d'être contre l'intervention occidentale, c'est tout autre chose pour défendre un régime corrompu et autocratique simplement parce qu'il est visé par l'Occident. Non à l'intervention occidentale, et non à Assad!

On the death of Hugo Chavez

The world has lost one of the most dynamic figures of our age. Some (particularly American capitalists) call him a dictator, some compare him to a modern Juan Peron, to others he is the closest thing to a savior. He had elements of all of these: there is no doubt that he made questionable judgments in foreign policy like continuing to support the regime of Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus, Ahmadinejad in Iran, and others who opposed U.S. interests yet were not the best of leaders. He also had a classic Latin American strong leader style like Peron and Castro, you could clearly see it in his speeches and his rhetoric. But ultimately what he will be remembered for, what he should be remembered for, is the dedication he had to ensuring the best for the people of Venezuela. He fought to make education, healthcare, and rights for working people a reality for all. He ensured that the power of finance capital that crippled the world economy and that had ruled Latin America for years would have no power over people of Venezuela. Most importantly, he started a revolutionary, democratic process to create a new type of socialist society free of Leninist dogma that encourages direct participation in local politics (Bolivarian Circles) and encourages direct ownership of the means of production through government sponsorship of worker cooperatives. Leaders like Chavez may have their problems, but actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Bolivarian Revolution he helped create will resonate through Latin America, the international Left, and the world at large for years to come.

Mali: The colonialism that just won't die

There are times in my cynicism as an American leftist that I am willing to overlook major flaws of certain movements, people, or parties if they seem to have a genuine commitment to social justice, equality, or radical change. Take the case of France: a new center-left government has committed itself to fighting austerity and expanding power of the welfare state, not exactly Greece's SYRIZA but nevertheless I held some optimism that the new French government would buck the power of neoliberal interests in some ways. Then there is Mali. If there is one legacy that still casts a shadow over the 20th century for France it is it's old colonial system, one of a classic core-periphery relationship that makes the former colonial nations still very much dependent on Western trade. In the last few years Mali has experienced a brutal civil war between the unstable and corrupt government and a combination of Tuareg rebels and Islamist fighters. While the Islamists have tried to curb the power of the Tuareg rebels, both groups have been crucial in the current fight that has extended to other French colonial nations such as Algeria. And what has been the response by the Hollande government? Classic foreign intervention, one that is surely to be committed in the name of regional stability and making the world safe from terrorism, but given the track record of France when it comes to stability of former colonies (see Rwanda 1994) it would seem that this operation is nothing more than an expansion of neoliberal interests and defending those interests. Instead of attempting to end years of structural adjustment policies created by the IMF (formerly headed by a French Socialist Party leader) that have left many former colonial nations and their people powerless against Western business interests. So while France attempts to play the humanitarian game, don't forget that this action will do nothing but prop up a Western-backed corrupt government and in the end will only serve the interests of neoliberalism.

The Personal Lives of Leftists, does it matter?

For the leftist community around the world it is hard to always defend the actions of many of the men and women who helped shape the mold for socialism and communism. While some of the "founding" philosophers lived rather tame existences, I'm thinking of Kropotkin for one, many lived lives that mainstream ethics would look at as immoral. While it may seem silly to look at the lives philosophers who wanted to change, disrupt, or dismantle the status quo, it is important, in my opinion, to look at the personal mistakes of those we ideologically look up to critically.

Looking at Marx, one sees a brilliant theorist who helped define the struggles of the industrial and post-industrial age who nevertheless lived a life of near-Randian "mooching". While he did make some of his living off of his journalism, he ultimately depended on Engels for financial support. And to top it off, he was a known bar brawler and allegedly had a child by his housekeeper. 

Next Althusser, another brilliant theorist who suffered from psychological problems and ended up strangling his own wife. Then we have to contend with: Sartre's sexism, Bakunin's anti-semitism, and not to mention the extramarital affairs of Lenin, Trotsky, and Guevara.

But does it ultimately matter? While the historical leaders of the Left have had their flaws, historical leaders from all political stripes have had their share of problems: Churchill's imperialistic racism (referring to Gandhi as a "half-naked fakir"), Gandhi's tumultuous relationship with his son, Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, etc. But how must us on the Left react to the flaws of our historical leaders? Simple: separate the people from their ideals. Though they may have been hypocrites or had their problem vices, it is important for us to look at these flaws, learn from them, and move on. It is not our job to defend the personal legacies of these philosophers, they were imperfect as all humans are, and we thus must be committed to changing the world instead of interpreting it by learning from their mistakes. 

Response to "Tragedy of the Commons"

For my Environmental Governance class I wrote this short response to Garrett Hardin's 1968 piece "The Tragedy of the Commons":

The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek refers to a quote attributed to Vladimir Lenin on the Russian Revolutionary’s view of freedom “Freedom yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?” (Zizek, Slavoj. On Belief. N.p.: Marxist Internet Archive, 2001. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek.htm.). In Garrett Hardin’s article “The Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science 162 (1968): 1243-1248. Accessed September 2, 2012. http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/lectures/population/Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons.pdf.) he addresses this very notion by looking at the realities of overpopulation. He starts by asserting that this problem is one of “no technical solutions”, meaning that the outcome will not be necessarily pleasant or helpful to all, but, as he asserts at the end, is fundamentally necessary.

            Hardin asserts that because we live in a society governed by the values of individual liberty and private property we allow for our “commons” to be ruined because each of us wants to ensure our survival and success without coercion. He famously looks at the problem of a common-shared grazing pasture for cattle in which people want to have more of their own cattle put in the pasture even if it means lessened possibility of more cattle to be put there in the future. For Hardin we as a society are ruining our common resources and their future potential by allowing for the “freedom to breed”. He specifically criticizes the liberal human-rights notion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that establishes the family as a “natural and fundamental unit of society” that cannot be limited by anyone else. While this may sound uncomfortably elitist and border-lining on Social Darwinian he makes an essential point that for our commons to be restored and ensured for future generations, we must allow for forms of “mutual coercion” to limit our breeding capabilities.

            While Hardin makes many valid points about overpopulation one must also look at the implications for common resources and remember he is acting out of an assumption that society will continue to run under the liberal, individualist system. This is where one must look at alternatives, and with Zizek’s comments on Lenin the Russian radical seems like a good place to start. Lenin’s views on freedom were born out of what he saw as necessity to protect the institutions he created during the Revolution because he saw any reversion to liberalism as a possible catalyst for counterrevolution. While the context and time may be entirely different from Hardin, the reality is still the same: for whom and to what extent can we value freedom? If freedom means freedom to do what one likes regardless of consequences to others, as our liberal democratic dogma contends, that “freedom” is thus simultaneously the death-knell for many who do not have such privilege to do with resources what they like. Therefore we have to ask ourselves: is liberal individualism truly the best system for allocating resources and utilizing them? Though some assert we can find alternative energies to ensure unlimited consumption, as long as we rely on the status quo of production and distribution we will continue to utilize finite resources which are increasingly lessening.  

The Meaning of the Wisconsin Recall

Tuesday's recall election  for anti-union governor Scott Walker has electrified liberals and centre-leftists of all stripes around the United States. From the Democratic Party establishment to liberal/progressive union-supporting networks activists on the moderate left have poured much of their time and energy into the effort to defeat Walker's corporatist administration.
And yet, what does it say about the nature of the labor movement in the United States if it relies on elections like these to find relevance? Some would argue it is part of the tradition of the modern Democratic Party to support trade unionism, but the most prominent Democrat and liberal in the country, President Obama, has remained virtually silent on the whole debate. Further some are decrying that a victory for Walker in the recall would be a major setback for labor in general.
The nature of American business unionism that has attached itself to the apparatus of the neoliberal Democratic Party shows the powerlessness of workers in America today. While unions can defend workers from unfair hiring and firing as well as defend them from harsh cuts in meager benefits, unions on the whole do not usually question the nature of the wage system that perpetuates dire situations for working people the world over. It is about paying dues, setting up shop at industries, and negotiating meager wages with millionaire owners of capital.
What American workers need, like all workers of the world, is a movement of working people with a horizontal power structure, where there is no need for stewards or union bosses, where all workers function through a direct democratic system to not only make more wages than the minimum but to make living wages to have a decent life. And if there is one American attribute that can be applied to this, it is self-initiative, workers cannot rely on business unions and corporate Democrats to stand up for them, only workers themselves can stand up for economic equality. Thus, we must take the Wisconsin situation and not fetishize the electoral circus create by liberals, workers must look at the blatantly anti-worker sentiments of Walker and stand up to it like in the beginning: mass strikes and protests, and go further with worker occupations. If the labor movement is to survive and really help the working people of America it must distance itself from electoralism and regain the militancy of its past.

The New Greek "Revolt"

So after a week of waiting the world now gets to see the results of the last week's Greek parliamentary elections: PASOK, the third largest party in Parliament, has failed to form a coalition after New Democracy and Syriza have also failed. As the BBC states the president is now going to call for parties to form a government of "national salvation", but that call is unlikely to be heeded. The crisis of the Greek government's legitimacy will now lead to a new round of elections, and these new elections will be even more interesting as the public has already shown it is not fond of the New Democracy/PASOK neoliberal austerity policies, so the question remains will this mean a rise for parties like Syriza, Democratic Left, the Communists, and Golden Dawn, or will scared voters want the stability of PASOK and New Democracy? The situation in Greece is the most volatile in the Western world right now, and everyone should keep their eyes fixed on it because this may be the biggest example of the failure of neoliberalism the world has yet seen. Stay tuned...