I can't trust anything coming out of countries occupied by the US. And it's likely the same for China, these diplomatic statements are a whole nothingburger.
Assad was a snowflake compared to Jolani. Also much of the "assad tyranny" was directly caused by the US economic blockade on Syria. Assad policies cannot be criticized without taking into account the state of emergency of Syria caused by the economic onslaught it suffered from the US and lackeys.
I think ultimately all communists should seek victory and topple their bourgeois goverments, but in certain circunstamces it should be understood that there is a larger struggle at place. The CPC and the KMT understood this and established a temporary alliance to fight the larger threat, we should learn this historical lesson.
The US has historically been very succesful at channeling these inner grievances between factions in other nations for their own advantage, Syria being the most recent example.
I am not knowledgeable on the topic but i do not have any simpathies toward the gulf monarchies, which are known US protectorates.
Edit: adding to this, as i mentioned before "Class Struggle" dives more deep into the nuances of class struggle and the forms it cant take in the local/regional/global scale. Seemingly reactionary conflicts can be globally progressive while seemingly progressive conflicts can be globally reactionary, just like oppressed classes like the proletariat can be the oppresor in the family context with the exploitation of the women in the household, and even the oppressed women can be the oppresor in regards with the children.
1: I find it revolutionary since it challenges the status quo of the uni-polar world. it is revolutionary in the current world context, just like bourgeois revolutions were revolutionary in their context.
2: i agree that the conditions are prime for a revolution, but where is the organization? revolution doesn't happen spontaneously by itself.
3: i can agree with this but it's non-important if there is no organization to cooperate with.
I completely disagree with the US achieving its goals statement when this war has strengthened the anti-imperialist alliance to a point that the ruling faction of the US is abandoning Ukraine and Europe in an effort to woo Russia against China. We are witnessing the imperialist bloc at it's weakest point, a direct result from this war.
Again, this is not the same context of the WW1, this is not one imperialist state fighting another imperialist state, this is an imperialist state trying to subjugate another state through their proxies Ukraine and NATO.
Both war contexts are very different. WW1 was inherently imperialist, imperialist countries fighting for a better share of the world while the current war is about stopping NATO expansion in Ukraine, NATO being the alliance of imperialist countries, Russia is found in a progressive side in this time.
Russia is simply not a part of the imperial core, like nor is Iran, another locally reactionary state. I cannot find myself supporting a movement, regardless of their politics, that weakens these states that one way or another are found themselves fighting against US hegemony, because that would make me end up in the pro-US side.
I think Domenico Losurdo "Class Struggle" does a really good job explaining the nuances of class struggle and the different forms it can take from small to global perspectives. Locally progressive struggles can find themselves helping a globally reactionary struggle while locally reactionary struggles can find themselves helping a globally progressive struggle.
Yes but the global context is different, the imperialist hegemon would benefit from a civil war in Russia, a communist revolution in Russia at this moment could very well be found itself fighting for the globally reactionary class war. In fact, the US would absolutely fund such a group, just like in Syria with the SDF.
Lol at the "peoples council", 1/3 directly appointed by the chief headchopper, 2/3 appointed by the "high comitee", which is also appointed by the chief headchopper.
Its fairly straightforward for imperialist countries, e.g. US, European states. But it gets incredibly complex when it's about ascendant capitalist countries like Russia.
While the notion is simple, i find this text very hard to digest. The world was very different when Lenin wrote this, it was a very multipolar world in that time, albeit these polars were imperialists competing for the distribution of the world while multipolarity now is about the right of self-determination.
The case of Russia is very interesting, a capitalist country that is ideologically reactionary but one way or another is found itself fighting for a globally progressive cause, the weakening of US hegemony throught the disarment of Ukraine, an US satellite state. Would this be the moment for the working class of Russia to organize to topple their oligarchy? Maybe it would be the prime time to do it even if it could potentially lead to an US invasion?
I can't trust anything coming out of countries occupied by the US. And it's likely the same for China, these diplomatic statements are a whole nothingburger.