Syria and Libya-Different Methods of Revolt

[RedMarxist]

I can't help but ponder the difference in approach when it comes to revolution in both Syria and Libya.

--Syria--

Largely peaceful, non-violent. As I type these words its revolution is being crushed. Attempts at violent defensive measures by citizens have only been met with even more brutal suppression. Is this proof that a peaceful revolution is either A) Impossible or B) Highly unlikely at succeeding. Comments?

--Libya--

Full scale violence employed by both sides, crimes against humanity that encompass most violent revolutions. And look where that got them? Gaddafi is gone, and the authoritarian regime toppled. However, unfortunately NATO had its filthy stinking paws on Libya the whole time...bastards. Is this further proof that "violence solves everything?" or could the regime have been toppled peacefully if the people kept up the protesting pressure?

I'd like to really discuss this. Libya and Syria IMHO are helpful reminders of how to either in your own opinion, to do, or not to do revolution. This is helpful stuff.

[thefinalmarch]

What you are seeing in Syria and Libya are not revolutions. In the case of the former we see a genuine popular uprising, although not class-based it still focuses on issues that are of importance to the working class. In the case of the latter we have a civil war between rival bourgeois factions - although the rebellion in its infancy seemed to revolve around a few class issues, any remaining members of this somewhat progressive but unorganised faction disappeared with the arrival of the pro-NATO, imperialist NTC which proceeded to steadily consolidate the opposition and gather an army for its imperialist war games.

Neither the Syrian nor the Libyan opposition is conducting any sort of revolution. These anti-government movements have certainly focused on class issues at some point in their existence to be sure (more so the Syrian opposition), but they are not class movements. Revolution is necessarily the process by which a class is overthrown by another. I'm not seeing much in the way of workers attempting to gain control of the means of production in either of the countries mentioned. I place extreme doubt in the possibility that whatever is happening anywhere in the Arab world at the moment will evolve into working class revolution.

On your question of violence in a revolution, I consider it absolutely necessary to defend the gains of the working class at all costs. Peaceful revolution is ideal, but the bourgeoisie aren't going to give up their means of production without a fight. A working class revolution will entail not just struggle for control of the means of production, but also class conflict in the streets as riot cops - among other agents of bourgeois repression - descend upon us*. As a user here has said (and I think it was Comrade Grant, but don't quote me on that), "a riot is a not a revolution, but rioting is certainly part of the process".




*don't interpret this as that there is a possibility of a repeat of the scale of violence in the Russian Civil War, though. No-one here thinks anything of the sort would happen again.

[onix]

starting with thefinalmarch, i agree that for 'the revolution' it is necessary to keep the primary target the dismantling of the class-societys. (for the rest i can see after 1 line he is making the marxist (alltho i would elaborate on the claim)) point.)

redmarxist,
i consider those questions very relevant and interesting. for syria, i think you underestimate the chaos. relevant is also that revolutionarys worldwide, not in the last place in libya and the rest of arab that sprung, wonder how much of a revolution it is with algeria eg. suddenly silently in reforming mode, campaigning for a libyan rekinging forwardly, egyptian development hidden and obscure, etc. and hate in the western discourse epidemic, in short with a onesided and explicitly polarised anti leftists claim.

peacefull resistance has in no case lead to a revolution, practically often serving the tuning of authoritarian measure.

libya otoh. also started out peacefully, albeit somewhat painfully obviously concerted by italy and the english (including expats), ghadaffi's reaction was predictably violent, that regime never used another method to suppres dissent, allthough it needn't perhaps earlier apply it on this scale. libyans typically improved after idris, the wealth was relatively sufficient to sustain the limited number or residents.

what was often either political or partisan was typically played out under the tribal guise so it stood not to scrutiny by a libyan 'electorate'.

fog of war, lack of time and resources, and old prejudice greatly limited our views on the exact procedings, but as ghadaffi started a terror campaign after beating down some uprisings (that had been attempted peacefull), 3 factors tipped the balance

(1) the hammered in grudge against ghadaffi in elite circles that brainwashed their minds, (quite some intellectuals would second that for displayed racism by 'rebels' i think) and it's asset of a brainwashed populace in the militaryindustrial power establishment.
(2) the revolutionary zeal of muslims and westerners alike
(3) the will of china, russia and arab league alike to display more courtesy (and in the arab case preserve some credibility)

and.. that libya was small.

so, i disagree the situations would be so much different. both started peacefull, but in libya the options for protest were more restrained. (mostly through what you could call military considerations)
both were met with violence and reacted, and in syria probably more then in libya btw. proacted, likewise to an extent.

there are 3 reasons military intervention in syria has not yet been the case, i think.
allthough there could be a seperate argument made about israel's neccessary triprongued approach.

these reasons are :
(1) the scale, sirya has a big populace, the result is as much more impredictable.
(2) the military was sufficiently occupied and would become stretched.
(3) influential players, arab league, russia, china and the public have become less then convinced of the legitimacy of an attack on syria in the light of what the arab spring did *not* deliver. (does egypt really gain meaningfull democracy, what's with bahrein? with saleh now i mention? what to think about the association with iran in the whole affair, look at what happened in irak..)

perhaps i should add turkey (for some reasom or another;)) decided not to start a trenchwar in syria, wich would probably have worked for bleeding out any ottoman aspirations of erdogan and any (n)ec(r)onomical ambitions of turkey as a whole.