Views in brief

Who wants Assad to go?

I WANTED to respond to a couple comments from readers ("Readers weigh in about Syria"), but first, I wanted to thank SocialistWorker.org for publishing Ashley Smith's article ("Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution"), as well as the responses to it. I believe this was the main point of the article: to have the discussion on the crisis in Syria and sift through the corporate media's failed reporting on these developments.

In response to Christopher Freeman's comment on U.S., Russian and Chinese imperialism: Imperialism is imperialism, no matter the varying degrees or shapes it may take in a conflict. Prior to the U.S. imperialist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia was involved in a nine-year conflict in Afghanistan when they were known as the USSR.

This conflict had massive consequences that the area still deals with today, mainly with radical right-wing Islamic groups like al-Qaeda and the shift of U.S. policy to focus on the Middle East.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the new Russian state and China continued to influence the area over the next 20 years through arms deals and energy deals to unsavory dictators like Assad. They may have not been on the level of U.S. imperialism, but it is part of the regional imperialism all the same, and a main point Smith's article gets across.

In response to Matt Owen's comment on the right of Syrians to decide their right to self-determination as a free and independent people of Syria, I agree. However, they were deciding that "Assad must go" from the very beginning of the Syrian Revolution in 2011--first, through a non-violent movement, until Assad mercilessly began mass genocide against innocent protesters and revolutionaries in Syria.

It was the Syrian people's voice that began this chant, and it soon became lumped with "Assad, foreign imperialists and radical-Islamists groups must go" as the conflict devolved into an international crisis, with multiple players involved.

The article simply echoes these demands, which readers can find straight from the Syrian people's words in articles linked throughout Ashley Smith's article. It was Syrians themselves declaring a need to end a brutal dictatorship to form a new democracy in the hands of the Syrian people from the beginning.
Alex Wood, Pittsburgh

The Trotskyists take over

IN RESPONSE to "The Labour leaders who are afraid of the party": We Trotskyists are a nefarious lot, but now our underhanded ways have been exposed by the Labour Party's deputy leader Tom Watson.

Watson is on to us--he explains that Labour's upcoming election has been undermined by "Trotskyist entryists twisting arms of young members." Exactly, that's how we roll, and here's how it works: We sneak in 50 or so highly trained "entryists" into a party of millions. Next we search out "young members" (they are, after all, the most vulnerable). Next, we twist their arms until they cry "uncle." Soon the takeover is complete.

The British Labour Party leadership and the bankrupt U.S. Democratic Party both--given all their differences--sense a storm that is forming to their left.

Right now, they are in damage-control mode and are using dirty tricks to fill the sandbags they will need to hold off the rising floodwaters. Just as the Democratic National Committee resorted to sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign, Labor's official leadership is determined to cheat new members out of their right to vote.
Guy Miller, Chicago

Cuba, democracy and one-party rule

IN RESPONSE to "A flawed revolutionary icon": Thank you for an excellent article. Recently, I have come across a contingent of people on the left in the West who can't stop praising Castro and celebrating what they call a truer form of democracy in Cuba than, say, in the U.S.

While I agree that the U.S. simply doesn't have a democracy, I was confused by what seemed to be the complete absence in those praising Castro as a model leader and humanitarian of any critique of the one-party rule that has dominated Cuba for decades.

Although I know that there are certainly tons of things I don't know about what actually goes on in Cuba, as opposed to accounts I may read of it, the absence of a critique of the power and authoritarian dynamics implicit and, in fact, explicit in the one-party system struck me as a peculiar form of denial or blindness.

This article gave voice eloquently to what I had been feeling these past several weeks.
Jonathan Rosensweig, Chicago

Growth under socialism?

IN RESPONSE to "What will a socialist society be like?": A very nice article as far as it goes--for example, a socialist U.S. would have free adult education--but I would like to see much more detail if I am to be convinced that socialism is not just another pipe dream for Americans.

For example, a U.S. without any private property and no accumulation of private wealth is not going to be acceptable, and that is how socialism is usually portrayed. A socialism that doesn't allow even a room of one's own isn't going to fly in this land.

It is very nice to say social and economic relations should not be driven primarily by private profit, but a zero-growth economy is not reasonable, if for no other reason than it would make the risk of negative growth and resulting famine, misery and counterrevolution very real. So what will drive economic production and how will it be organized?

Finally, what will be the limits on freedom of expression? These are important issues to be addressed if we want to answer Americans' concerns about socialism.
Keith, from the internet

Thanks for the review

IN RESPONSE to "The canyon between the rich and the rest of us": Let me thank Leela Yellesetty for the fine review of my book, The Great Inequality. She captures the essence of the book, I think, very well. I am most appreciative.
Michael Yates, Boulder, Colorado