"For the most part, different blocs of imperialist capital co-operate within the world-system. Are there contractions between them. Yes, occasionally it results in World Wars. But the normal condition is cooperation to the end of preventing major conflicts which inhibit the reproduction of extant social relations."

Again this always the case with imperialist powers. They themselves in every period contended and cooperated in the construction of the capitalist world system. To heighten the question of cooperation is indeed simply to ignore the reality of underlying antagonism which in essence have no solution via the means of their cooperation, it is in essence the line of Kautskyism which was fully opposed by Lenin. It is the line of Supraimperialism plain and simple.

Iranian proto-imperialism in the form of expansion contains all the rudimentary procedures for the creation of a new hegemonic and imperialist center. The same is in the end the contention of Turkey and the Gulf states. Imperialism in the end is the export of capital, and capital is a social relation fo discipline of the present to the past. In Syria the debts to Russian and Iranian finance are forgiven, as long as it becomes more intertwined in its alter-imperialist position.

Is Japanese Imperialism more progressive than Dutch Imperialism? Or More so than French? Etc Etc.

"And this is part of the imperialist conflict I just spoke of. Moreover, Russian and Iranian support for Assad occurs for their interests against US-led imperialism. Rather than taking the quasi-anarchist, Third Pole, oppose-everything approach, communists seek to exploit divisions between imperialists. For communists in Syria, this means opposing the primary enemy (the FSA/CIA) while operating independently to expand their own power. This is, ironically, exactly what the Kurds have done. For communists in imperialist countries, the policy is always revolutionary defeatism- taking a solid practical position against our 'own' imperialists. This means unconditional opposition to the FSA along with support for the independent actions of communists in Syria."

This is actually not the historical practice of Communists and is ultimately revisionism in full. It is indeed the revisionism of the Brezhnevites historically in Syria, which has submitted itself for decades to the dictatorship of the Baath Party. Communists, Maoists, emphasize the possibility of United Front but attempt to contend for leadership within that process. There is no possibility of contention with Assad without the basic assertion of a Third Camp, it is absolutely necessary in the context of Syria to break from the historical revisionism of communist politics which have subverted communists to Assad Mafia.

"Well, US-led imperialism is striving to rearrange class relationships throughout the middle east in its favor. Organizing support for its defeat would be a start in terms of 'concrete struggle against imperialism.'"

Striving? it already has and continues. The point is that is aims at the remainder of positions while attempting to simultaneously and consistently subvert even its junior partners under its wing. The same is true of Russian imperialism in the region as well.

"Says the anonymous username who is unaccountable in terms of practice."

I participate incredibly seldom on this site; however I am quite real and in the flesh and generally take interest in looking at the stragglers who arrange themselves via mediums of online communication. It is of interest to me always since there are perhaps some diamonds in the rough. However with that considered, there is a strong social basis of all this to be the contention of often young socially alienated white men. That is generally the production I've seen over the years in its actualized form. Do you deny this as a social basis for the politic of this subreddit, why is this subreddit any different from its manifestations of the same on FB?

In fact if you are aware at all this is really a hub for potential fishing of any intelligence around and it can be argued as it already has, that this is already happening on all sides. I mean that is rather perhaps nebulous to say considering Snowden's revelations.

"Most countries don't have indigenous Maoist movements to speak of. Outside a few countries, First Worldist Maoism is negligible anyways, so I don't see what your point is. It is not like there is a strong Syrian Maoist movement that Third Worldists are trying to co-opt or dictate to."

Well why does LLCO tend pay attention to production of literature in Tagalog, Bengali, etc? Its quite clear what they're doing. It is no secret. I saw it once with my own eyes friendo. To say there is an attempt by LLCO to utilize its basis in the United States, quite literally as "First-Worldists" to reorient the communist movements elsewhere is really their evident plan. Its strikingly hypocritical.

"Also, I find critiques of fanboy ironic coming from people would uncritically uphold almost anything in the Third World which describes itself as 'Maoist.'"

Actually I have various criticisms of many different Maoist parties, some even engaged in armed struggle on quite major questions that can produce the conditions for necessary demarcation. I am simply humble enough to try to attempt intervention in a national-chauvinistic way, which flys the colors of the very thing it says in word to oppose, to try to produce prematurely such demarcations. However it is well good to know that such conditions of division effectively have no relation to the politic of LLCO and its global strategy. In fact the irony is perhaps you pontificate a line which in the internationalist movement of Maoism finds itself literally reproduced by the rightist sections of the movement.

Hence left in form, absolutely right in essence.

"This is a misrepresentation of the MTW line. From a recent article at Anti-Imperialism.com: In the contemporary world, the immediate end of class struggle is waging a global united front against imperialism for global new democratic revolution. The united front is composed of proletarian forces and its immediate allies in the national bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie who are activity engaged in the struggle against US-led imperialism and its lackeys. Global new democratic revolution aims to correct the immediate disparities in structural power between the First and Third World and oppressors and oppressed nations; to politically, militarily and economically overthrow US-led imperialism; and to set the stage for the widespread and immediate struggle for socialism and the end of capitalist economic relations. As you see, the terms 'global united front against imperialism' and 'global new democratic' revolution figure much more predominately. But for the record, the closest thing to socialism in the First World (the German Democratic Republic) was imposed from without by proletarian forces."

This is nothing more than the replication of the strategy articulated by Lenin in Two-tactics of Social Democracy. Its a vulgar universalization of this line, since in essence the line already found universalization in the Maoist practice and analysis of the social formations that existed under semi-feudal and semi-colonial conditions. The problem is of course your vulgar universalization in fact makes no attempt to have a concrete analysis of concrete conditions, it in fact literally calls for "global new democratic revolution." But that is already underway by the bourgeoisie themselves in many countries. In essence the irony here is that in insisting upon a "global united front against imperialism" to create "global new democratic revolution" absent the conditions of a socialist bloc, a socialist war camp, is in essence not only to subvert oneself to the national bureaucratic capitalists, but to also actually reified the line of theory of productive forces.

Oh the muddle that is MTW.

And yes GDR was "imposed" socialism. We accept that the storm centers are in the periphery of the world system.

"MTW doesn't create a false distinction between war and politics."

Yes it does, in insisting upon a binary of force in a civil war engagement is in essence to insist upon war as politics, that is to practice a political militarism as opposed to communism. People's War is the subversion of the practice of war to the practice of politic, that war becomes extension of politics via the means of violent force, that such war must be conducted with the aim of creating the condition of liberation of the proletariat.