Solidarity with Home Sweet Home.

As the centenary celebration of the 1916 Rising comes to a close, something unique happens. A well organized, clearly well intended and very fitting tribute capture the spirit of 1916. A building, owned by a State body is liberated and it’s liberators have one powerful message.


The way housing is dealt with in Ireland is unacceptable and we shall tolerate it no longer.


This act, by virtue of the publicity surrounding it amplifies the discourse and message tenfold, bringing it as a topic of discussion all over the country and even to Irish diasporas living abroad. This act of defiance captures the injustices and social inequalities in Ireland and concisely allocates the blame to the State. After all, is it not the State, our government which is supposed to cater for us? Is it not the State that is supposed to look after the interest of the people?   The occupation in Dublin shines a light on the State and essentially shows how in the current society we live in, the State is not on our side.


In fact, what this political action shows is that the State has for a significant amount of time legislated and acted in the interests of a distinct economic demographic. Hint: It’s not those being evicted.  We can see better now that the social inequalities in Ireland do not have their own origin in “poor management” or “incorrect decisions”, but in fact the opposite. A calculated strategy by the establishment parties to look after and consolidate the economic interests of banks, multinationals and the well-off.


This political act has helped define the role of the establishment parties and the role of the State. They are neither with us, nor for us and as a result we must seek our own solutions. As I write this, activists in every part of Ireland are mobilizing and analyzing potential locations for liberation of their own. One act of defiance will turn into many and the dynamic in Irish politics will begin to shift once more.


Solidarity with Home Sweet Home!




Basic Material Analysis

You’d think that when Islamic jihadists and fundamentalists carry out terror attacks in the Western world, the governments in the West would cut funding to them in the ME. But we must acknowledge and realize that the Western Axis has a political disposition which relies on Islamic fundamentalism


In fact, it would be fair to say Islamic fundamentalism forms a key role of Western strategy in the ME and we can look through a variety of historical examples for this. A contemporary and particularly ruthless one is the Iran-Iraq war. Both sides received weapons and informal (and even sometimes formal) aid from the United States. It served US interest to break down two of the largest populated Muslim countries and make sure they were completely opposed to one another.


Therefore the correct argument in that historical situation would have been to first and foremost oppose outside meddling in the affairs of Iran-Iraq and secondly to oppose their quite theocratic war.In the case of Afghanistan, where a CIA funded Mujahadeen overthrew a progressive and semi-secular government, the same can be said. Islamic fundamentalists formed the general basis of realpolitik in the ME.In Syria, the situation is no different. Long-standing hostile relations between the ME countries aligned to the West and Syria contributed greatly to this. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel have played a significant role in directly aiding and abetting terrorists to destabilize their political opponent. Therefore the correct line on this question is to oppose outside the basis of foreign intervention in Syria.If the terrorists, rebels and whoever else did not have outside support – they would not have existed for so long and the war would have been shorted, therefore less devastation would have been caused, less people would have become homeless and refugees and there would have been far less casualties.
The funding that the Western Axis and it’s allies provides is fundamental to the continuation of the Syrian war and has largely little to nothing to do with Russia.Those who argue that the government falling will provide some sort of democratic revival are being fooled, fooling themselves and only developing the impetus for an outright invasion of Syria, in blunt terms, objectively supporting imperialism.

Empire of the Left: Response to SWP Propaganda.




The absence of any material analysis, dialectics or actual Marxism is pretty clear. It is generally consistent with the absolutist moral outrage that the SWP regurgitates. The world is not a black and white community divided into good guys and bad guys which we then choose from. Every crisis must be examined with the most finest of details unscrupulously pursued.


“Aleppo was once a symbol of democratic resistance to the Assad dictatorship in Syria. People rose up as part of the Arab Spring to try to win their freedom. Today it is being buried in rubble and blood.”


Syria is another country – in a long line of countries that has been targeted for regime change. So like Libya and Ukraine before it, the same strategy of organizing small groups of discontent people and placing them before the public eye for maximum visibility. Healthy skepticism of Western interests (imagine Syria being skeptical of the West, I mean it’s not like they just destroyed the neighboring country of Iraq!) would lead to a disproportionate government response and there you are – the perfect recipe to incite, promote and develop a strategy for regime change.

Let us be clear in understanding that the basis for removing Assad was not to promote some sort of new, democratic and open society in the Middle-East,but to displace a political opponent of Western imperialism who did not play ball.

“Assad’s troops are going house to house and systematically executing men of military age. This brute wants to eliminate all opposition to his rule so that he can hold onto a smaller section of Syria.”

This is quite literally from the CIA textbook. The information, sources/links coming out about this information are usually categorized as “unverified” or from “unnamed” sources (rebels on the ground) and serves to promote further the acceptance of Western intervention in Syria.  One would think that, such flamboyant statements about a regional opponent of Western imperialism would be taken with a very large amount of salt, after all, do we jump to believe that Fidel Castro has “executed 22,000 people” too? I guess we do if we’re in the SWP.

“The only reason he has succeeded is though the help of Russia.”

Not exactly. Most displacement of Syrian people has happened internally and the vast majority if not all live in government controlled areas.  Ironically, several Western journalists and stations, who can only report from Government controlled areas for fear of violent attacks outside, reported on the general popularity of the government but most importantly in what were peoples priorities in this tragic war.

Time and time again opinion polls have also shown that while Assad is not universally loved, his popularity among Syrians is still at a strong 50% on average and upwards of 80% in major urban centers. This may not mean much for those disinterested in the practical and complicated reality of the war in Syria, but for those who are, this essentially means that a degree of popular supports provides significant leverage for maintaining a government and infrastructure to withstand droves / thousands of mercenaries funded by outside support.

It is also worth noting that another country which the US has several times threatened to intervene in (and has actually staged a coup in not so long ago) stood shoulder to shoulder with Syria, this is of course Iran.

“We live in a world where the ‘great powers’ are increasingly in conflict to divide the world up between them. They intervened in the Syrian revolution to turn it into a sectarian conflict and through that to make gains for themselves.”

No, we don’t. We actually live in a world where the US supported by NATO does virtually what it wants in any part of the globe. Occasional refusal to obey comes from the other traditional anti-Western powers who are not as easy to fold or pressure as smaller and weaker countries are.  The world is not “divided”, it is squarely at the feet of the country who’s budget dwarfs the next five countries after it in terms of military expenditure.

The Middle East is torn apart by sectarian conflict for tree fundamental reasons:

1) When the colonial powers withdrew from this area, they probably deliberately drew the lines of the new nation states to be as contentious as possible for the local people, thus inciting constant disagreements among the new nation states.

2) The colonial state of Israel was established and this further incited sectarian divisions in the ME,especially as by this time certain countries (notably the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait) had aligned themselves to the Western powers and focused their politics locally around this too.

3) The CIA is a key sponsor of developing Islamic fundamentalism in the ME.The overthrow of the relatively progressive Republic of Afghanistan was a cornerstone in this as it then became a safe haven for the Taliban and Al-Q for almost 25 years before then being invaded again by the United States.  Additionally, the Iran-Iraq war is a good example of the Western arms industry funded both sides irrespective of the long standing consequences this would develop in the region.

“Saudi Arabia and Qatar funded various jihadi groups in order to increase their influence over the area. The US tried to find ‘moderate’ opposition groups so that it too could gain leverage over the country.”

I think ‘various’ is an understatement but this is possibly the first accurate statement in this article.

“Up to recently, Russia was the weaker imperialist power and they were terrified that they would lose military bases and another of their client states.”

Imperialism does not mean “moving military stuff around”, this is again a good example of the lack of any depth to SWP analysis or theory.  Russia is not an imperialist power by virtue of the world power structures where the US is a super power. It certainly has the capacity to be an imperialist power should such a vacuum arrive.  The relationship between the RF-Syria goes back a long time when relations were formed with the USSR.

If we’re sorely lacking a definitive understanding,  I’ll leave Chapter IV here.

“Under the guise of combating terrorism, they intervened to maintain their influence over the area. They forged an alliance with Iran who wanted to shore up Assad as a bulwark against Saudi supported regimes. Both sought to turn the conflict in Syria into a sectarian war – from which they could make gains.”

This statement just itself acknowledged that Saudi Arabia and the US were funding jihadists and rebel groups so there is certainly no guise needed to combat terrorism. I am also not entirely sure what exactly is bad about stopping the Syrian government falling to Jihadist groups.

“The result has been a terrible war which is fueled by the different imperialist powers.Aleppo is a warning to the whole world of the barbarism that will come when imperialist powers try to carve the world between them.”


As outlined above, the disposition of political power in the world does not put the United States and Russia on an equal footing. In addition and again as mentioned earlier, the chronological timeline of events does not constitute a series of clashes between the United States and Russia but constant regime change initiated in various countries by the United States. The statement, if written correctly should really read “This is what happens when the United States invades a country that is not by every other country in the world to be done away with”.

“Some elements of the left and those influenced by right wing conspiracy theories think that Russia plays a ‘progressive role’.But just because Russia is a weaker empire, it does not mean that it acts differently than stronger thugs.”



Some elements on the left repeat what the CIA, US Statement Department, UK Foreign Ministry and other proponents of world imperialism say and then worse yet distribute this information among their membership.


Imperialism does not mean “moving military stuff around”.


“The people of Chechnya already bear witness to the horrors of Russian state terrorism after their efforts to establish some autonomy was crushed.”


The people of Chechnya bear witness to the fact that a huge amount of them helped the Russian army drive out other foreign backed mercenaries in the second Chechen War. If one scratched past the surface they’d quickly realize that at a moment when there was an opportunity in an oil-rich part of Russia to destabilize and take it apart, that opportunity was taken. It failed.


“The sympathy of every decent left winger should go out to the people of Aleppo. They deserve safe passage from their city. There should be a global cry of anger against any army that uses medieval tactics to butcher civilians they have put under siege.”


I don’t think I’ve yet to see anybody explicitly condemn the conflict and not hope for it’s end. The distinction has arisen explicitly in how it should end. Perhaps the Jihadists should be asked to leave peacefully? Curiously enough that was on offer already, thrice. Additionally, now that they have left, safe passage IS being arranged (


“Calls for military intervention by the West, however, will do nothing to lessen the horror. The US committed as many- and more atrocities – than even Russia and Assad did in Syria. For every Aleppo that is a victim of Russian imperialism, there is a Fallujah in Iraq that was subject to the same terror by US imperialism.”

This is another appeal to the liberal and weak middle ground position that does not demand any sort of analysis or adopting of a concrete position.The two countries are not and will likely never be on equal footing as long as the US holds the title of lone super power.   It’s also worth noting that the methodology in which the US/West prepares for invasion and intervention is also in winning the war ideology, that is to justify the intervention. So as long the SWP and it’s front the PBP repeat what the State Department states, they will win and the very thing the SWP claims to oppose in this piece will happen.


“Ireland should open its doors to refugees who can flee cities like Aleppo. We should totally dismiss racist arguments that people of Muslim faith represent a threat to our society.


But after Aleppo we also need to re-double efforts to build a world that is free of all imperialist brutality.”


Theses things go without saying but largely reflect the liberal nature of the SWP-PBP membership.  What is going on in Syria is not some sort of peaceful confrontation between two groups with differing opinions, but only one angle of the constant and never ending attempts by the Western axis to impose it’s will all over the world where need be. There would not be refugees coming from Syria, were there no foreign backed jihadists tearing the country asunder. In fact Syria, like Libya helped house and cater for refugees from other countries before both countries were invaded.


There will never be a world free of all imperialist brutality as long as empty slogans are all the left in Ireland and abroad can offer. Concrete positions achieved through analysis on the material conditions in Syria and outside will help us pierce the war of propaganda initiated, perpetrated and continued by the Western Axis


“If you agree then join People Before Profit. Text JOIN to 0872839964.”

You know you’re utterly twisted and fucked in the head when you use humanitarian disasters to recruit.





[Source master post, credits to owner]