LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

look man, it's just part of my job as a professional shade thrower

I just fixed the problem on my end.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The problem with Baʻathism (Arabic, بَعْثِيَّة [MP3 pronunciation], Baʿ°aṯiyyaẗ, “Awakening”) is that it is secular. Although there is increasing secularization in the Arab world, Baʻathism started well before that time.

jesus, you're adding mp3s now?

The upcoming range of pullstring Professor figurines will allow us to share these joys with friends, family and colleagues. Incidentally, these three groups are all covered by the same word in the proto-Hebrew language of the worshippers of the divine paperclip, Clippy, (Ca`lii°pee'pee, "The reality latcher") rediscovered notably in the later works of the libertarian Marxist Roy Bhaskar, and put to work in organising a wide array of cosmic stationery...[continues for several paragraphs]

[Nekokuni]

The problem with Baʻathism (Arabic, بَعْثِيَّة [MP3 pronunciation], Baʿ°aṯiyyaẗ, “Awakening”) is that it is secular.

Huh, how is that a bad thing? I thought that a Communist would be strongly supportive of secularism.

[Cekoviu]

jesus, you're adding mp3s now?

The upcoming range of pullstring Professor figurines will allow us to share these joys with friends, family and colleagues. Incidentally, these three groups are all covered by the same word in the proto-Hebrew language of the worshippers of the divine paperclip, Clippy, (Ca`lii°pee'pee, "The reality latcher") rediscovered notably in the later works of the libertarian Marxist Roy Bhaskar, and put to work in organising a wide array of cosmic stationery...[continues for several paragraphs]

this is great

[Proctopeo]

The problem with Baʻathism (Arabic, بَعْثِيَّة [MP3 pronunciation], Baʿ°aṯiyyaẗ, “Awakening”) is that it is secular.

Huh, how is that a bad thing? I thought that a Communist would be strongly supportive of secularism.

It's hard to tell, but I think he's saying that it being secular is a bad thing for the decidedly anti-secular Arab world, meaning its potential for traction is limited.

[Paleocon States of America]

Huh, how is that a bad thing? I thought that a Communist would be strongly supportive of secularism.

It's hard to tell, but I think he's saying that it being secular is a bad thing for the decidedly anti-secular Arab world, meaning its potential for traction is limited.

Am I the only person here to enter RWDT and come out with the view that Syrian Christians should win the civil war and unironically start a crusade across the Arab World and into Israel?

[Bienenhalde]

Huh, how is that a bad thing? I thought that a Communist would be strongly supportive of secularism.

It's hard to tell, but I think he's saying that it being secular is a bad thing for the decidedly anti-secular Arab world, meaning its potential for traction is limited.

It is true that the Middle East is highly religious, but "secularist" groups in the Middle East such as the Baathists tend to advocate equality between different religions, rather than being outright anti-religious. The one country in the Middle East to adopt French style Laïcité was Turkey under Ataturk, but Turkey is ethnically and culturally distinct from the Arabs.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Huh, how is that a bad thing? I thought that a Communist would be strongly supportive of secularism.

I wasn't saying that Baʻathism is bad. I was explaining why Baʻathism did not become popular in the Arabic world.

As to my personal views, my feelings about Baʻathism are mixed. I like the secularism, but I also regard Baʻathism as third positionist. I despise third positionism.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Am I the only person here to enter RWDT and come out with the view that Syrian Christians should win the civil war and unironically start a crusade across the Arab World and into Israel?

So, you are providing a proposal for starting World War III?

[Paleocon States of America]

Am I the only person here to enter RWDT and come out with the view that Syrian Christians should win the civil war and unironically start a crusade across the Arab World and into Israel?

So, you are providing a proposal for starting World War III?

No, Russia supports the Christians and America doesn't really like the Arab world.
We may take offense at the whole "into Israel" thing though.

[Threlizdun]

Huh, how is that a bad thing? I thought that a Communist would be strongly supportive of secularism.

I wasn't saying that Baʻathism is bad. I was explaining why Baʻathism did not become popular in the Arabic world.

As to my personal views, my feelings about Baʻathism are mixed. I like the secularism, but I also regard Baʻathism as third positionist. I despise third positionism.

Secularism actually used to hold decent popularity in the Arab world. Islamism as an ideology large grew out of the vacuum created after most civic nationalist, Arab nationalist, secular liberal, and socialist ideologies were rather aggressively squashed by foreign powers who saw their opposition to the domination of the economy and politics of these countries by European or later American and Soviet powers as dangerous to their maintenance of strategic control over the region. Just look at the secular Pharaonist movement in Egypt that rose to prominence in 1920's and 30's prior to the rise of Arab nationalism and Islamism as major forces in Egyptian politics.

[Nekokuni]

Pharaonism sounds really interesting. Although I was hoping they were an ideology that wanted to bring back Ra worship and the Pharaohs.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

No, Russia supports the Christians and America doesn't really like the Arab world.
We may take offense at the whole "into Israel" thing though.

The scenario you provided would likely start World War III.

You mentioned, in your posting, the right-wing discussion thread. Bear in mind that you are posting in the left-wing discussion thread where communists, like me, will not have much sympathy for imperialism.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Secularism actually used to hold decent popularity in the Arab world. Islamism as an ideology large grew out of the vacuum created after most civic nationalist, Arab nationalist, secular liberal, and socialist ideologies were rather aggressively squashed by foreign powers who saw their opposition to the domination of the economy and politics of these countries by European or later American and Soviet powers as dangerous to their maintenance of strategic control over the region. Just look at the secular Pharaonist movement in Egypt that rose to prominence in 1920's and 30's prior to the rise of Arab nationalism and Islamism as major forces in Egyptian politics.

In some parts of the Arab world, especially some (not all) areas within Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. However, throughout most of the rest of the Arab world, secularism was widely regarded, even by non-Islamist Muslims, as incompatible with Islam.

[Bakery Hill]

It's hard to tell, but I think he's saying that it being secular is a bad thing for the decidedly anti-secular Arab world, meaning its potential for traction is limited.

Am I the only person here to enter RWDT and come out with the view that Syrian Christians should win the civil war and unironically start a crusade across the Arab World and into Israel?

No there are plenty of LARPers.

[Albrenia]

The last thing the middle east needs is yet another big religious conflict. Place is already awash in violence as is.

[Proctopeo]

The last thing the middle east needs is yet another big religious conflict. Place is already awash in violence as is.

They're natural enemies... just like Jews and Muslims, Christians and Muslims. Or Tengris and Muslims. Or Muslims and Muslims. Damn Muslims, they ruined Islam!

[Ostroeuropa]

No, Russia supports the Christians and America doesn't really like the Arab world.
We may take offense at the whole "into Israel" thing though.

The scenario you provided would likely start World War III.

You mentioned, in your posting, the right-wing discussion thread. Bear in mind that you are posting in the left-wing discussion thread where communists, like me, will not have much sympathy for imperialism.

Arab countries are not good at wars and haven't been for quite a long time because of the way they treat their military (The commanders are political appointments chosen specifically not to be competent people, done to secure the regime after a history of routine military coups.). The efficacy of what army and equipment they do have is drastically lower than might be expected from a competent usage of it, and we already outpace them there by several lightyears, they are paper kittens. We destroyed the Iraqi government in about a week at a time Iraq had the 3rd largest army in the world. "World War 3" is drastically overestimating their competence and ability. The entire middle east could be reduced to rubble by Europe alone within a year, let alone a western alliance. The only country that gives us a moments pause is Iran, and that's mostly a matter of terrain. With control over neighboring airfields, that becomes as trivial as it did in afghanistan.

Then you have to occupy population centers for the conversion process. Far easier for us than rooting out the rebels in the countryside. It would be simpler than the current war on terror in terms of military practice, though conversion strikes me as impossible or difficult without the destruction of holy cities as a show that Islam had failed. The west is currently fighting plenty of wars on a very limited level of mobilization, to the point most people can't even name the wars we're involved in. The power disparity is absolutely massive. The second it approaches a "World war 3" problem, we gear up for stuff like desert storm, obliterate the opposition with overwhelming force, and that's that. The middle east isn't a threat to us. Nobody without nukes is. Even Russia without its nuclear deterrent is not a credible threat.

That's separate from that being desirable. It isn't. It would be a pointless war for christian dominance instead of muslim dominance, and while I suspect violence from them would decline as a result if they turned christian by normal means, turning christian by means of violent conquest and crusaderism won't remove the inspiration for religious violence and will impact the nature of the religion, we'd still see the economic and imperialist factors causing some arabs to turn terrorist, and the nature of the war would mean the imperialism factor increased in severity.

To give an indication of the level of military might the west has, we are currently undertaking a task that practically everyone except people using it as an excuse for authoritarianism said would be impossible, the elimination of every single Islamic terrorist.
We're not doing that badly at it.

That's how insane our power is. We can up and decide no individuals of a particular variety will exist in the countryside of the middle east and get maybe a passing grade. (Though it does mean perpetual low-level war.)

Comparatively, occupation of population centers is a much simpler war, requiring less effort and technology. The technological gap between natives and the west is back to being massively disproportionate to such an extent that i'd say yes, colonization and occupation are militarily viable again and the catch-up that natives played is not likely to be doable again. Economically there's no point though. Such an undertaking would need to be ideological in nature, as with the proposed christianization.

All of this is assuming we move from limited mobilization to mobilizing for a normal war.
In the event of WW3 Total war, there will not be a middle east for more than an afternoon, and a billion people will be dead. Almost none of them western.

De-Islamification of the middle east might be more desirable and practical than christianization.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

That's how insane our power is. We can up and decide no individuals of a particular variety will exist in the countryside of the middle east and get maybe a passing grade. (Though it does mean perpetual low-level war.)

I agree. The U.S. would likely be responsible for most of the devastation.

De-Islamification of the middle east might be more desirable and practical than christianization.

That's Western colonialism. The Western world has no right to dictate the religious allegiances of people in other societies.

[Northern Davincia]

Pharaonism sounds really interesting. Although I was hoping they were an ideology that wanted to bring back Ra worship and the Pharaohs.

Someday, friend.

[Dark Socialism]

Pharaonism sounds really interesting. Although I was hoping they were an ideology that wanted to bring back Ra worship and the Pharaohs.

Wouldn't that just be Pagan Monarchy?

[Silver Commonwealth]

Pharaonism sounds really interesting. Although I was hoping they were an ideology that wanted to bring back Ra worship and the Pharaohs.

Well, it will probably not happen, as Islam has a strong ground there. As for cultural aspects... More likely, but still...

[Second Empire of America]

There's only one Trotskyist in the American government that I can think of, and she's only a city councilor.

Who's that?

Kshama Sawant, a city councilor from Seattle. (She's in opposition, with the rest of the Seattle City Council being controlled by the Democratic Party.)

[Second Empire of America]

Anarchism is as unnatural a means to organize society as violence.

http://bss.au.dk/en/insights/2018/samfu ... orce/?T=AU

We seek out and create hierarchies.

Violence is the mainstream way of organizing societies though. Violence is required for a hierarchy to be established, and later maintained (and historically, has always been used as well)

Hierarchies can definitely be formed without violence, but they need violence to grow beyond the people who decided to sign up to join the hierarchy in question. If violence was removed from the equation, you'd still see a lot of small-scale hierarchies, but there would be very few large-scale hierarchies like states and corporations.

[Greate Boston]

Violence is the mainstream way of organizing societies though. Violence is required for a hierarchy to be established, and later maintained (and historically, has always been used as well)

Hierarchies can definitely be formed without violence, but they need violence to grow beyond the people who decided to sign up to join the hierarchy in question. If violence was removed from the equation, you'd still see a lot of small-scale hierarchies, but there would be very few large-scale hierarchies like states and corporations.

A vertical hierarchy can't be formed without violence in the first place. You can't "make" people accept your supremacy over them without the threat of violence. (and vertical hierarchy is inevitably about dominance and supremacy)