[yiwahikanak]

No, of course not.

Here is why I do.

White liberals do not exist only in the US etc. To me, white liberals are defined by settler colonialism because settler colonialism ultimately created the category 'white' by artificially lumping together disparate ethnic and religious groups based on ever changing criteria. In order to exclude the 'other'. This is easy to spot in the US and Canada, yes?

Okay, but in Latin America, there is a mythos of racial ethnogenesis which has eliminated 'whiteness'. This mythos is supported by the 'othering' that occurs within the US in the main, as all Latinos become racialised as 'non-white'. Many Latinos identify as having indigenous roots, for example, despite having NO ties to existing indigenous communities, and in fact, continuing to benefit from colonialism. This happens in the us and Canada too as people claim Cherokee princesses in their bloodline, but in the US and Canada, this does not render someone non-white.

In Latin America, racialisation is just as strong as in the US, it just manifests slightly differently. There exist white settler colonials in Latin America, generally those of the upper classes, who are descended directly from the original settler colonials. Allende is absolutely one of these, just as Stephen Harper is in Canada. That Allende was a socialist does not change this. He was a member of the white upper class. That all Latinos are classified as non-white by the US changes nothing when referring to the internal dynamics of Chile. Allende was a part of settler colonialism, and thus, not an ally, in my opinion.

Well, it stands to reason that since he was a socialist, he would be the one that would be more likely to be willing to be open and clear about ethnic issues in so far as they intersect with economics.

Here is where we differ. I do not believe that most socialists (particularly settler socialists) are willing to question the legitimacy of colonialism and recognise indigenous sovereignty. Sovereignty is a poor word, btw, for what I mean, my apologies. But essentially, the only allies I call allies, are those who accept that colonialism is illegitimate and did not confer sovereignty over our lands to settler colonials. Anything less is, in my opinion, still a facet of western liberalism.

How? I don't even understand how you reach that conclusion. One of them is a liberal and the other isn't.

An internal division a,one settler colonials that does not matter in the context of the 'first lens'. It matters only when discussing those internal divisions outside that view. Obviously I understand the difference, but I also recognise that neither approach challenges settler colonialism.

I view them as a form of 'third position' (racialised left-nationalism), since they have basically combined socialism with ethnic nationalism.

Drawing from my knowledge of Cree sociopolitical governance systems, I disagree. Mayan groups have their own specific sociopolitical orders that are similar only generally to ours of course, but the essential difference here is that the EZLN is rooted in those sociopolitical orders, and socialism is secondary to that. Similar to how Catholicism is merely a veneer over a deeper indigenous system of beliefs and relationships in many of our communities. So I understand why some people characterise the EZLN this way, basically because very few people are familiar with indigenous sociopolitical orders and thus do not understand how they are different than settler colonial ideologies. But characterising them this way is inaccurate because it attempts to describe something through a western lens which is, in my opinion, incapable of accurately describing non-western systems.

[yiwahikanak]

I think that when people say that, they are basically saying that the first socialist theorists were white people. I've never understood that criticism though. I mean, that didn't prove to be a problem for Salah al-Din al-Bitar (Ba'athism Syria branch), or Ho Chi Minh (Marxism-Leninism HCM Thought).

Socialism does not address settler colonialism, and thus is irrelevant to indigenous peoples. We do not need western ideologies, we have our own.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The point here really is that Rei is defining ideological groups along lines of economic systems. Certainly there is variation amongst groups but really you just have communism, socialism, capitalism, and fascism. The rest is window dressing.

I don't think she does. Otherwise she would have to include Syria in the liberal-capitalist camp. And regardless, it would not make sense at all to ignore political organisation of the state in defining an ideology.

This board is truly an ideological battleground for her, so nobody should expect her to approach this with intellectual honesty.

[Rei Murasame]

Never actually, I just read PoFo mostly.

I genuinely feel good to hear you say that. I don't know why, but somehow that felt good to read.

Here's a perfect example of the 'immobile motion' by the way. The Dhofar Rebellion, check it:

In 1962, Oman was a comparatively underdeveloped country in the Middle East. Sultan Said bin Taimur, the absolute ruler, had outlawed almost all aspects of twentieth-century development and relied on British support to maintain the rudimentary functions of the state. Dhofar itself was a dependency of Oman and it was subjected to severe economic exploitation.[4][page needed] Moreover, the population of Dhofar, who speak various modern South Arabian languages, were subjected to even greater restrictions than other Omanis.

So you start out with white liberals supporting a socially conservative slave-owning Sultan who has banned refrigerators and toasters. And then:

In 1962 a dissatisfied tribal leader, Mussalim bin Nafl, formed the Dhofar Liberation Front (DLF) and obtained arms and vehicles from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and Oman had earlier clashed over ownership of the Buraimi Oasis, and the Saudis had already supported two failed insurrections in the Jebel Akhdar in the interior of Oman in 1957–59. The DLF also received support from Imam Ghalib Bin Ali, the exiled Imam of Oman, who had led these earlier revolts.

Some kind of internal relations problem springs up. And then:

In 1967, two events combined to give the Rebellion a more revolutionary complexion. One was the Six Day War which radicalised opinion throughout the Arab world. The other was the British withdrawal from Aden and the establishment of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY). From this point, the rebels had a source of arms, supplies and training facilities adjacent to Dhofar, and fresh recruits from among groups in the PDRY. Training camps, logistical bases and other facilities were set up in the coastal town of Hawf, only a few miles from the border with Oman.

In May 1968, an attack by a battalion of the Sultan's Armed Forces against a rebel position at Deefa in the Jebel Qamar was defeated by heavily-armed and well-organised and trained rebels.[6]

At a "Second Congress" of the insurgent movement in September 1968, most of the official posts within the movement passed into the hands of radicals, and the movement renamed itself the Popular Front for the Liberation of the Occupied Arabian Gulf (al-Jabha al-Sha'abiya li-Tahrir al-Khalij al-'Arabi al-Muhtall), or PFLOAG. The move towards Marxism-Leninism ensured that the PFLOAG received sponsorship from both South Yemen and China. China in particular was quick to support the PFLOAG as it was a peasant-based organisation, giving it a strong Maoist credence. Chinese support for the PFLOAG also had another benefit for them, as it acted as a counterbalance to increasing Soviet influence in the Indian Ocean. China was quick to establish an embassy in Aden and "the Yemeni regime allowed its territory to be used for channelling weapons" to the PFLOAG.[7] Both the Chinese and Soviets also provided members of the PFLOAG with indoctrination and training in unconventional warfare.

The transformation of the DLF, combined with a new supply of weaponry and better training, ensured that the armed wing of the PFLOAG turned into an effective fighting force.[8] However, it also led to a split between those such as bin Nafl who were fighting mainly for local autonomy and recognition, and the more doctrinaire revolutionaries (led by Mohammad Ahmad al-Ghassani). One of bin Nafl's lieutenants, Said bin Gheer, was an early and influential defector to the Sultan.[9]

Nevertheless, by 1969 the DLF and PFLOAG fighters (known widely as Adoo) had overrun much of the Jebel Dhofar, and cut the only road across it, that from Salalah to "Midway" (Thumrait) in the deserts to the north. They were well-armed with such weapons as the AK-47 assault rifle. They also used heavy machine guns (the DShK),[10] mortars up to 82mm in calibre and 140mm BM-14 or 122mm "Katyusha" rockets.

PDRY was a coalition government in South Yemen that arose because Marxists and Syrian-educated Ba'athists decided to make a coalition government, for the record. They gave weapons to PFLOAG, and then China joined in, and so did the USSR. It was at that stage that Islamists and other people sympathetic to the capitalist west, quit and defected back to the Sultan.

But by then, the PFLOAG was gloriously kicking the ass of all comers.

And that's when the liberals and the Sultan began doing the 'immobile motion':

On 23 July 1970, Said bin Taimur was deposed.[11] The coup was almost bloodless. Folklore has it that one of the plotters, two of the Sultan's bodyguard and the Sultan were slightly wounded, all by the Sultan himself. Sultan Said went into exile in London. He was replaced by his son, Qaboos bin Said, who immediately instigated major social, educational and military reforms. His "five point plan" involved:

• A general amnesty to all those of his subjects who had opposed his father;
• An end to the archaic status of Dhofar as the Sultan's private fief and its formal incorporation into Oman as the "southern province";
• Effective military opposition to rebels who did not accept the offer of amnesty;
• A vigorous nation-wide programme of development;
• Diplomatic initiatives with the aims of having Oman recognised as a genuine Arab state with its own legal form of government, and isolating the PDRY from receiving support from other Arab states.

Within hours of the coup, British Special Air Service (SAS) soldiers were being flown into Oman to further bolster the counterinsurgency campaign. They identified four main strategies that would assist the fight against the PFLOAG:

• Civil administration and a hearts and minds campaign;
• Intelligence gathering and collation;
• Veterinary assistance;
• Medical assistance.[12]

The military commanders on the ground (rather than the UK Ministry of Defence) suggested the implementation of a "hearts and minds" campaign, which would be put into operation primarily by a troop (25 men) from the SAS. The British government (then under Conservative leader Edward Heath) supported this unconventional approach to the counterinsurgency campaign. It approved the deployment of 20 personnel of the British Royal Engineers, who would aid in the construction of schools and health centres, and drill wells for the population of Dhofar.[13] A Royal Air Force medical team would also operate out of Salalah hospital, in order to open a humanitarian front in the conflict. The operation was almost a carbon copy of a system that had proved successful in the Malayan Emergency some twenty years previously. The British government additionally provided monetary support for the creation of the Dhofar Development Programme, whose aim was to wrest support from the PFLOAG through the modernisation of Dhofar.

To assist in the civil development and coordinate it with the military operations, the command structure in Dhofar was reorganised, with the newly-appointed Wāli or civilian governor (Braik bin Hamoud) being given equal status to the military commander of the Dhofar Brigade (Brigadier Jack Fletcher to 1972, Brigadier John Akehurst from that date).

A major effort was made to counter rebel propaganda and induce the Dhofari population to support the government.

So that 'coup' was actually a maintenance of the same core ideology. Western liberals still got access to all the resources and could control the economy, the Sultanate still gets to run the place on its whim, and there are some 'reforms'.

PFLOAG correctly diagnosed that as a mere reform, and so continued to fight against the reformed government as though nothing had changed. And indeed, fighting was the correct choice, because structurally, nothing had changed.

____________________________

Fascism is about ensuring that a certain class of people remain in charge forever and ever, so that they can decide what is an is not a developmental priority.

Indeed. So that means you understand that there is an objective different between who gets to be in charge forever and ever.

____________________________

In Latin America, racialisation is just as strong as in the US, it just manifests slightly differently. There exist white settler colonials in Latin America, generally those of the upper classes, who are descended directly from the original settler colonials. Allende is absolutely one of these, just as Stephen Harper is in Canada. That Allende was a socialist does not change this. He was a member of the white upper class. That all Latinos are classified as non-white by the US changes nothing when referring to the internal dynamics of Chile. Allende was a part of settler colonialism, and thus, not an ally, in my opinion.

Okay, I understand completely where you are coming from, there. There is a racial division inside Latin America which I just hadn't taken into account.

Drawing from my knowledge of Cree sociopolitical governance systems, I disagree. Mayan groups have their own specific sociopolitical orders that are similar only generally to ours of course, but the essential difference here is that the EZLN is rooted in those sociopolitical orders, and socialism is secondary to that.

Don't they accept - like in East Asia - that regardless of what the old ways of social organisation were, that the antidote to the the thing which is attacking them, must be found inside the thing that is attacking them? To me it just makes sense that liberalism emerged in Europe first, and that fascism and socialism both appeared inside Europe in the shadows cast by liberalism's emergence.

I don't have a quote for it, but I am sure that someone has said it before. That to fight against something, you have to necessarily adopt some element of that thing.

____________________________

I don't think she does. Otherwise she would have to include Syria in the liberal-capitalist camp.

Why on earth would I place them in that camp?

And regardless, it would not make sense at all to ignore political organisation of the state in defining an ideology.

See the beginning of this post on the Dhofar Rebellion, to see why petty reforms are a ploy and can indeed be ignored.

This board is truly an ideological battleground for her, so nobody should expect her to approach this with intellectual honesty.

I'm one of the few intellectually honest people around here, so you should always expect intellectual honesty from me.

[Pants-of-dog]

Indeed. So that means you understand that there is an objective different between who gets to be in charge forever and ever.

You just agreed that fascism and liberalism are the same thing.

I think we're done here.

Why on earth would I place them in that camp?

I believe that Kaiserschmarrn was saying that mikema63's summary of your position was incorrect.

[Rei Murasame]

You just agreed that fascism and liberalism are the same thing.

No I didn't, I pointed out that what I am saying is that different classes of people get into control, and that these are objectively different classes with different interests. That's why I used the word 'certain' in my response to you.

For some strange reason you failed to understand that having one group of people in control forever and ever, is different from having another group of people in control forever and ever. I'm being generous here since I could just accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

I believe that Kaiserschmarrn was saying that mikema63's summary of your position was incorrect.

Well, Mike's summary is not incorrect.

The reason that PoFo is 'an ideological battleground', by the way, is because the people who support liberalism seem to think that lying is a form of argument.

[Pants-of-dog]

No I didn't, I pointed out that what I am saying is that different classes of people get into control, and that these are objectively different classes with different interests. That's why I used the word 'particular' in my response to you.

For some strange reason you failed to understand that having one group of people in control forever and ever, is different from having another group of people in control forever and ever. I'm being generous here since I could just accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

You defined the ideological role of liberalism as "to basically make sure that a certain class of people remain in charge forever and ever, so that they can decide what is an is not a developmental priority."

Since Fascism is explicitly about keeping one group of elites in power and forcing everyone else to obey their whim, fascism therefore has the exact same ideological role.

Well, Mike's summary is not incorrect.

Then Kaiserschmarrn is correct.

The reason that PoFo is 'an ideological battleground', by the way, is because the people who support liberalism seem to think that lying is a form of argument.

You seem to think that calling other people liars is an argument. Pot, meet kettle.

[SolarCross]

No I didn't, I pointed out that what I am saying is that different classes of people get into control, and that these are objectively different classes with different interests. That's why I used the word 'certain' in my response to you.

Are they really different interests? If it amounts to a class or gang putting boots on necks and another class or gang getting the boots on the neck, liberal or fascist isn't really all the same hooey?

[yiwahikanak]

Okay, I understand completely where you are coming from, there. There is a racial division inside Latin America which I just hadn't taken into account.

Yes! And this matters when viewing liberalism as a facet of settler colonialism. I used to believe that socialists automatically made good allies, but have found that in practice this is rarely so. The best allies are those who are willing to limit their ideologies to their own spheres of influence, while respecting ours. The best metaphor for this ideal relationship is the Two Row Wampum, a treaty given visual form as two parallel purple lines on a white background, representing two rivers. Essentially, you conduct your own affairs and do not interfere in ours and vice versa. Peaceful coexistence and non-interference, which necessarily means deeper ties which must be renewed often to avoid veering into one another's business. But this must be done with an understanding that settlers are not owners of the land, and that is something few western liberals of any stripe are willing to accept, as dominance over land is the source of wealth.

Don't they accept - like in East Asia - that regardless of what the old ways of social organisation were, that the antidote to the the thing which is attacking them, must be found inside the thing that is attacking them? To me it just makes sense that liberalism emerged in Europe first, and that fascism and socialism both appeared inside Europe in the shadows cast by liberalism's emergence.

Most indigenous peoples believe that the antidote lies in indigenous resurgence. Our ways are old, but not lost, and they are highly adaptable our sociopolitical orders are not technology dependent. The concept of, to give one example, consensus based decision making (required in some situations bit not all) is not linked to what technology is used to discuss and arrive at a consensus.

What I see, is indigenous groups using western liberal ideologies as metaphors for what is actually being brought back, so that western allies can understand and support us better. If western ideologies have something to offer that is lacking in our own sociopolitical orders, then of course we can use them. For example, much is said about indigenous egalitarianism... But some Pacific Northwest peoples have a tradition of taking slaves, and did not accept homosexuality or afford all women political power. Do these groups wish to return to pure traditions? Generally not. Then again, they may look to the Haudenesaunee for models of gender equity rather than recently developed liberal feminism

Appealing to socialism was an important first step for the EZLN, but Authentic indigenous resurgence has been the focus there for a long time, and I believe that what arises from that is more indigenous than it is settler liberalism.

[Rei Murasame]

You defined the ideological role of liberalism as "to basically make sure that a certain class of people remain in charge forever and ever, so that they can decide what is an is not a developmental priority."

Since Fascism is explicitly about keeping one group of elites in power and forcing everyone else to obey their whim, fascism therefore has the exact same ideological role.

No, because ideological role, is predicated on class and ethnicity. In that order.

I am actually slightly surprised - assuming that you are not being dishonest for the fun of it - that you don't understand the class system. If you seriously don't understand why I used the wording 'a certain class of people' (obviously the white haute-bourgeoisie in liberalism's particular case), then maybr that is the root of why you do not understand fascism or socialism.

Then Kaiserschmarrn is correct.

I no longer understand what you're talking about. If Mike is correct, then Kaiserschmarrn cannot be correct. Also, Syria is not a liberal-capitalist state, and on top of that, Syria is part of the Axis of Resistance and must be supported anyway, because if it falls, the United States will sweep the table in the Middle East and then western liberals will have even more resources to use for crushing everyone else.

You seem to think that calling other people liars is an argument.

It's more like an assessment.

________________

Are they really different interests? If it amounts to a class or gang putting boots on necks and another class or gang getting the boots on the neck, liberal or fascist isn't really all the same hooey?

Well, let's do it this way. Ask Pants-of-Dog that question. Ask him if he sees liberalism, fascism, and communism as all being 'the same thing', because all of them act like the mafia.

You and him seem to saying this, but I need to show him what he is doing, by having him see you agree with him.

So rather than asking me, ask him.

I'll only say this:

The historical process signifies primarily the class struggle; moreover, different classes in the name of different aims may in certain instances utilize similar means. Essentially it cannot be otherwise. Armies in combat are always more or less symmetrical; were there nothing in common in their methods of struggle they could not inflict blows upon each other.

Basically.
________________

Yes! And this matters when viewing liberalism as a facet of settler colonialism. I used to believe that socialists automatically made good allies, but have found that in practice this is rarely so. The best allies are those who are willing to limit their ideologies to their own spheres of influence, while respecting ours. The best metaphor for this ideal relationship is the Two Row Wampum, a treaty given visual form as two parallel purple lines on a white background, representing two rivers. Essentially, you conduct your own affairs and do not interfere in ours and vice versa. Peaceful coexistence and non-interference, which necessarily means deeper ties which must be renewed often to avoid veering into one another's business. But this must be done with an understanding that settlers are not owners of the land, and that is something few western liberals of any stripe are willing to accept, as dominance over land is the source of wealth.

So in short, to summarise your whole post, you are calling actually for full secession, then, and an alliance made after that? I can agree to that (not that I get to decide, unfortunately), but I assume that usually it runs into problems because of resources?

Take for instance, let's say that indigenous people are living on top of a resource that is necessary for making some kind of tool that is used in manufacturing. And lets say that some kind of socialists are in the nation next door. If they ask you to sell them the resource so that they can use it to fight against some liberal-capitalist power or something, would indigenous peoples be willing and able to agree to the sale?

Not a sale of the land, but a sale of whatever thing is buried under it that the neighbouring country needs.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, because ideological role, is predicated on class and ethnicity. In that order.

This is
a) wrong, and
b) apparently irrelevant.

I am actually slightly surprised - assuming that you are not being dishonest for the fun of it - that you don't understand the class system. If you seriously don't understand why I used the wording 'a certain class of people' (obviously the white haute-bourgeoisie in liberalism's particular case), then maybr that is the root of why you do not understand fascism or socialism.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

I think we're talking past each other.

I no longer understand what you're talking about. If Mike is correct, then Kaiserschmarrn cannot be correct. Syria is not a liberal-capitalist state.

I no longer understand what you're talking about, and I no longer care.

It's more like an assessment.

No. It's just an insult.

[Rei Murasame]

We are talking different languages. There's probably nothing that can be done about it. After a certain point it always comes to that.

[yiwahikanak]

So in short, to summarise your whole post, you are calling actually for full secession, then, and an alliance made after that? I can agree to that (not that I get to decide, unfortunately), but I assume that usually it runs into problems because of resources?

Take for instance, let's say that indigenous people are living on top of a resource that is necessary for making some kind of tool that is used in manufacturing. And lets say that some kind of socialists are in the nation next door. If they ask you to sell them the resource so that they can use it to fight against some liberal-capitalist power or something, would indigenous peoples be willing and able to agree to the sale?

Not a sale of the land, but a sale of whatever thing is buried under it that the neighbouring country needs.

The reality of the situation is that settlers are here, and they aren't going anywhere. We have to live together. From the indigenous perspective (as though there is only on, ha!), what needs to happen is the complete dismantling of the colonial state, as all of its sociopolitical foundations rest atop the bedrock of the lie of colonial sovereignty over our lands.

We have a model for what is possible, in the many Peqce and Friendship treaties made between indigenous peoples and Europeans here before land ever became an issue. We shared resources in mutually beneficial ways and respected principles of non-interference, cooperating when inter-group conflicts arose.

Essentially, we would reestablish our territories and regain control over our lands and resources. Using our own sociopolitical models, we would reestablish relationships with non-indigenous peoples living here based on peaceful coexistence and non-interference. In some cases, this may result in hybrid indigenous/western systems, while in others, and according to population/space, it may mean separate indigenous and western systems which cooperate but do not bleed over. Vast areas of Canada are essentially already under 'ethnic' governments, such as Nunavut (majority Inuit) and the other territories (Inuit and other groups). But they are all still controlled from Ottawa and do not have complete say over resources.

Indigenous peoples are not adverse to development... we are against unsustainable capitalism. We bear the brunt of the environmental devastation created by unsustainable resource extraction, along with rural settler populations who also tend to oppose these huge projects. We would have to regain the right to control what is developed, and how it is developed.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples gives a good 20 year snapshot of how we would go about achieving the first vital steps to reestablishing a Two Row Wampum-like relationship. Much would have to change, but this is not impossible, or just generalized dreaming. There are concrete plans which have to be implemented. Of course, settlers must buy in and settler colonialism is the biggest obstacle here. (RCAP: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/130745 ... 7458751962)

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Why on earth would I place them in that camp?

See the beginning of this post on the Dhofar Rebellion, to see why petty reforms are a ploy and can indeed be ignored.

Because their stated objective is to become a "social market economy" based on the German model and they are well on their way. If Egypt, Turkey, and Russia are liberal capitalist then why should we exclude Syria? It's all there: Free trade agreements, cooperation with the IMF, WTO application, attempts to attract FDI, tax incentives for businesses and foreign workers, reopening of the stock exchange, expansion and encouragement of the private sector including banking and finance, etc. Syria just started the process a bit later than the others and was also hampered by external factors such as sanctions by the US and now the freezing of FTA negotiation by the EU, for example. These measures are far from petty, but are rather pretty fundamental changes to the Syrian economy.

Of course, they will, in all likelihood, not model their political system after the German one. But we are restricted to economic policies, so that shouldn't influence the assessment.

I'm one of the few intellectually honest people around here, so you should always expect intellectual honesty from me.

You are for the most part, I agree, but not in this case.

... Syria is part of the Axis of Resistance and must be supported anyway, because if it falls, the United States will sweep the table in the Middle East and then western liberals will have even more resources to use for crushing everyone else.

Sure, that makes sense from your perspective. However, I imagine it would be difficult for you to make these broad and general statements about liberal-capitalists (and how much you hate them) if Syria was one of them. To distinguish between (what you consider) destructive liberal-capitalists and liberal-capitalist countries like Syria you'd need one or more additional criteria: for instance, its political organisation.

[Rei Murasame]

If Egypt, Turkey, and Russia are liberal capitalist then why should we exclude Syria? It's all there: Free trade agreements, cooperation with the IMF, WTO application, attempts to attract FDI, tax incentives for businesses and foreign workers, reopening of the stock exchange, expansion and encouragement of the private sector including banking and finance, etc.

Those things are point by point secondary phenomenon, but you have to look at the structure.

This is where it was going:

[...]

The development of the “new class” necessitates a state in which the bureaucracy directly controls essential parts of the national economy, including state planning, yet with no democratic control over those who run the state and little ability to prevent private business from organizing the external relations of the state economy. Such an “economic middle way...a patching together of capitalist economy, dependent on the West, and overall central development planning,” [10] is found not only in Syria and other developing countries with superficially socialist tendencies, but also in the Arab Gulf states with their quite different socio-economic structure. The “new classes” in both places not only appear to be similar but cooperate closely.

The relationship between “new class” and state is not free of friction. The “new class” owes its existence to the state and profits from its “middle-way” policies. By developing its own interpersonal networks and unofficial centers of power, though, it also represents a potential threat to the system and its leadership. The political leadership could decide to direct public criticism toward the “new class,” accusing it of corruption and decay.

This was what happened in the summer of 1977, after three of the most prosperous years ever for the “new class” and its partners. As the public’s grumbling grew louder at the obviously ill-gotten fortunes of the new class, the president launched a campaign against corruption and set up a “Committee for the Investigation of Illegal Profits.” The committee soon had a number of businessmen and public servants arrested, mostly of medium rank but also some prominent businessmen like ‘Attar, ‘Uthman al-‘Aidi and Nahhas.

Following their release some weeks later, these top figures immediately turned to another form of private business-state cooperation, the so-called “mixed,” private-state joint stock companies for tourism similar to Nahhas’ Transtour. The state holds a minority share of the capital and is represented on the board, but does not interfere in business, all the while granting the companies wide exemptions from most regulations private businesses complain about -- above all, labor laws and import regulations.

In 1986, this model of private-state cooperation was adapted to agriculture as well. According to Presidential Decree 10, the state would have a 25 percent share in the companies’ capital, in the form of agricultural land. The companies are exempted from all labor laws, land reform acts and import, export and foreign currency rules. In addition to wide-ranging tax exemptions, the companies are not subject to the state’s agricultural plans, and repatriation of foreign investment capital and profits is guaranteed. Within a short time, a dozen of these companies were set up, the first two initiated by Nahhas and ‘Attar, respectively. Not all the founding partners of these companies, and not all the businessmen attracted by the scheme, are “new class.” But these founders and initiators do represent those in Syrian commerce and industry who, more than others, seek close cooperation with the state.

The “mixed sector” is therefore more than just another indicator of economic policy. [11] It is a form of partnership between the state bureaucracy -- which still upholds the slogan of central planning and public-sector leadership of the economy -- and the commercial class. This cooperation entails, in effect, a privatization of public resources, and the state’s surrender of some of its social and political principles as expressed in labor laws, trade union rights, state planning programs, foreign trade and currency regulations.

The mixed sector is not the only example of privatization that is accelerating and that the regime calls necessary, given the present crisis in the state economy. But the mixed sector endeavor expresses a trend to transform a state-dominated development economy into a more “liberal” one, and at the same time to transform the state bourgeoisie which, legally and institutionally, is now acquiring a role in private business.

Our thesis is that the so-called “state class” or state bourgeoisie will not continue as such. After a period of partnership, first silent and then open, with the new bourgeoisie, and after increasingly coming to share the interests of the latter, this class will become an authentic bourgeoisie, owning the means of production. As this occurs, the transforming state class will increasingly intermingle with the other branches of the bourgeoisie and finally fuse with them.

Whereas 25 years of bureaucratic rule in Syria began with the liquidation of a major part of the industrial bourgeoisie and left its commercial counterpart more or less untouched, today we can see the beginning of the bureaucracy’s transformation process. The next generation’s commercial and industrial bourgeoisie will likely be stronger and more homogeneous than the present bourgeoisie, tracing its roots to two main sources: those who have “always” owned the means of production, and those who have obtained this status during the last third of this century -- those whom we call, for lack of more adequate terms, the “new class” and the state bourgeoisie.

However, as it turned out, that prediction came out a little differently than expected, thanks to a skilful manoeuvre by the state bureaucracy. Observe:

Syria met the challenge to liberalize later and more hesitantly than most Middle Eastern states. Bashar al-Asad's efforts to open up the Syrian economy and copy the "China model" were bolder than his father's during the 1990s but remained hobbled by half measures and caution. All the same, he introduced private banking, insurance companies and liberalized real-estate laws. He dropped tariff barriers with neighboring states, licensed private schools, and permitted use of the Internet in an effort to encourage private and foreign investment.

But, even as Asad sought to boost private initiative, he feared its results. To avoid the emergence of a capitalist class that would be largely Sunni and not beholden to the regime, Asad turned to his cousin Rami Makhlouf, who became "Mr. Ten Percent" of the Syrian economy. He assumed a majority stake in many major enterprises and holding companies and ensured that the Asad family maintained control over the economy. Office holders at every rank of the state bureaucracy replicated this model of crony capitalism, exemplified by the presidential family. A new class of businessmen drawn from the progeny of major regime figures — called the "sons of power" (abna al-sulta) — has become notorious for its wealth and economic assertiveness.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Sounds a bit like Russia, Rei, just without the Ba'athist flavour.

As I see it, you are casting such a wide net with your usage of the term liberal-capitalism, that most (if not all) fascist states during WWII could fall into the category. There are so many countries nowadays that borrow some liberal tenets (e.g. some of the economic policies and some, often only in name, democratic policies) at their convenience that we have too many hybrid systems for the term liberal-capitalism, as used by you, to be meaningful in many debates.

It depends on context. Often it's fine to lump Russia and China in together with Canada and New Zealand, but often it just doesn't make any sense at all. It may be useful from your perspective (and maybe even amuse you a bit) to tell Pod and SpaciousBox that they share their ideology with Russia, but it doesn't reflect reality.

[Rei Murasame]

You're just looking for ways to try to not understand it. The people on your side are strongly invested in trying not to make sense of the world, because you don't necessarily have a choice that you are wanting to make.

For you, it doesn't matter whether Assad is a bulwark against the liberal-imperialist agenda or not, or what he could stand to do better in his country, because your position is the easiest of all: Knock down everything and create liberal-capitalist states everywhere, under the tutelage of the United States and European Union. You really have it the easiest.

I see it as a sort of postmodern tendency, where anyone who wants to actually categorise anything will be met with perpetual and ongoing resistance, because you guys are trying to abolish the ability to think about categories, groups, and currents. Which of course would lead to paralysis for anyone that's not part of the status quo. I need to do a whole thread on this at some point, because it really is something that I've never been able to describe.

I first noticed this tendency among certain feminists actually when I started talking about 'what women need', and some people have given me responses like, "but what is 'woman', and are all women really in the same category?"

And some point this sort of thing becomes frustrating beyond words. And now I see it has appeared in other areas too. I want to know if there's a specific word for it. Is there a word for it?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You're just looking for ways to try to not understand it.

I can understand your perspective and, although I don't agree with it, it's valid in my opinion. It is, however, not solely based on the economic system. You clearly include other considerations to establish whether a country falls into the liberal-capitalist category or not. For example, you assess whether it is a bullwark against US/EU interests or not.

At the same time you refuse to acknowledge that others may have a different, but equally valid, perspective. For instance, there are plenty of people who strongly object to being thrown in with authoritarians and that's a perfectly valid way to differentiate between liberal-capitalist countries. It's just different from yours.

The people on your side are strongly invested in trying not to make sense of the world, because you don't necessarily have a choice that you are wanting to make.

For you, it doesn't matter whether Assad is a bulwark against the liberal-imperialist agenda or not, or what he could stand to do better in his country, because your position is the easiest of all: Knock down everything and create liberal-capitalist states everywhere, under the tutelage of the United States and European Union. You really have it the easiest.

I actually do think that Assad's ideology and geopolitical outlook matters, but so does Russia's and China's. I also think that it makes perfect sense to distinguish between liberal democracies (which neither Syria, Russia, or China are) and other political systems. You, however, seem to only allow a distinction based on the former (i.e. bullwark against liberal-imperialism), but not the latter (political organisation).

This is what I was referring to in my comment about intellectual honesty. I'm fairly certain that you can intellectually comprehend where Pod is coming from when he says that Russia is not liberal. After all, it's pretty simple: Russia is not a liberal democracy. But from your ideological perspective, the distinction doesn't matter and you (understandably) want to frame the debate differently. You seem to view him as an (unwilling) enabler of the very system he criticises and he is therefore part of the system, regardless of his convictions.

I see it as a sort of postmodern tendency, where anyone who wants to actually categorise anything will be met with perpetual and ongoing resistance, because you guys are trying to abolish the ability to think about categories, groups, and currents. Which of course would lead to paralysis for anyone that's not part of the status quo. I need to do a whole thread on this at some point, because it really is something that I've never been able to describe.

I first noticed this tendency among certain feminists actually when I started talking about 'what women need', and some people have given me responses like, "but what is 'woman', and are all women really in the same category?"

And some point this sort of thing becomes frustrating beyond words. And now I see it has appeared in other areas too. I want to know if there's a specific word for it. Is there a word for it?

I don't object to categories, I just think that depending on context and perspective there are several useful ways to look at liberal capitalism. Political organisation is a perfectly valid criterion.

[Rei Murasame]

Okay, I can see where you're coming from, then. I won't agree of course, but I can see that of course we are framing the issue differently from each other because of a different understanding of how things work.

But the reason I argue is because I don't think it's just a matter of perspective, I think that people like Pants-of-Dog ans Roxunreal and SpaciousBox really do have it wrong.

For example, Pants-of-Dog denies that class is relevant. By doing that denial, he will always end up having to focus on secondary phenomenon (or even things that exist explicitly despite liberalism, in unease and at tension with it) which have come to be associated with liberalism, rather than focussing on primary phenomenon which define liberalism across generations solidly through different stages of social change. Because of this defect in their understanding, they might seize upon things like 'full suffrage' or maybe 'rights of gay people recognised under law', call these things 'intrinsically liberal', and then perhaps looking back in time, they might strangely disclose to us that liberalism somehow did not exist in the UK in 1911. Or that somehow liberalism didn't exist in the USA until a couple weeks ago when the Obama adminstration repealed the Defence Against Marriage Act. Or that somehow liberalism will not exist in Russia until the Russian establishment catches up to 2013 and makes peace with gay people.

When they present things like that, it creates a lot of problems, because the flip-side of that defect in understanding, is that they start to also think and propagate the idea that if a person wants to have such-and-such nice contemporary secondary phenomenon, a person must accept the structure of the present system and everything that comes with it. You can see it from the posts that contain lines that start with 'you should thank liberals' and lines like 'all the alternatives are worse than the USA', and so on and so forth.

Basically it leads to a depressing conservation of the status quo in all the most significant ways.

[Pants-of-dog]

For example, Pants-of-Dog denies that class is relevant. ....

Actually, I don't.

I think class systems are a hold-over from feudalism and are not consistent with liberal belief in egalitarianism.