Bashar Al-Assad

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Is it time for Bashar Al-Assad to go?

I think it's time for him to hand over power to the People's Council of Syria and leave the nation before they try him and execute him. He should do it before the imperialists get involved. With him stepping down and handing over power to the Baathist controlled People's Council, he will not risk his nation being taken over by imperialist influence. They also need to ratify that new constitution and commence peace talks with the opposition leaders. This will stabilize Syria, no longer allowing it to become an imperialist's playground. That's just what I believe.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Assad ought to take heed of the fate that befell Gaddafi, and leave immediately. If not, he is likely to ultimately suffer a fate similar to that which befell Gaddafi.

[Grenzer]

There should be a third option: Don't care.

Whether the Assad regime survives or not, things won't change much. The Assad regime would just be replaced by an Islamist one, which would be worse. In either case, it doesn't seem like it brings us any closer to revolution so I'm indifferent.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

There should be a third option: Don't care.

Whether the Assad regime survives or not, things won't change much. The Assad regime would just be replaced by an Islamist one, which would be worse. In either case, it doesn't seem like it brings us any closer to revolution so I'm indifferent.

Well, he can prevent an Islamic State (which I doubt is the objective of the opposition) by handing power over to the People's Council, which is full of liberals and Baathists who will prevent an Islamic State.

[Optiow]

Damn, I accidentally clicked no...

My shaky hand aside, Assad is a dick. And so are the radical muslims. It's sad, but I think either way Syria will stay oppressed by one of these groups. I would love it if the workers created soviets and proclaimed a socialist republic, but they won't. I see no way for them to overthrow their oppressors right now.

It's depressing, but it is reality.

[Grenzer]

Well, he can prevent an Islamic State (which I doubt is the objective of the opposition) by handing power over to the People's Council, which is full of liberals and Baathists who will prevent an Islamic State.

Are the liberals powerful there?

I had thought the Muslim Brotherhood was pretty strong. I have a feeling that if Assad was overthrown, it would be Egypt all over again with the Islamists surging and then dominating government. I've haven't actually looked too much into the political situation there.

The Alawite religion is pretty bizarre so I've been looking at that more. The media, and the Alawites themselves like to try to portray themselves as Shiites, despite that not being the case at all. They regard Greek philosophers as holy figures and some other weird shit like that.

What do you mean by Baathists? The ruling party is the Ba'ath party.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Are the liberals powerful there?

I had thought the Muslim Brotherhood was pretty strong. I have a feeling that if Assad was overthrown, it would be Egypt all over again with the Islamists surging and then dominating government. I've haven't actually looked too much into the political situation there.

The Alawite religion is pretty bizarre so I've been looking at that more. The media, and the Alawites themselves like to try to portray themselves as Shiites, despite that not being the case at all. They regard Greek philosophers as holy figures and some other weird shit like that.

What do you mean by Baathists? The ruling party is the Ba'ath party.

The Ba'ath Party is sort of the only legal party there, but in the People's Council, you can also be elected as nonpartisan. The nonpartisans are usually liberals from the National Progressive Front, including socialists and maybe some communists. The Muslim Brotherhood is not allowed to operate that freely in current Syria, so if power were transferred to the People's Council, why would they allow the Islamists to gain power? As long as talks are set between the People's Council and the opposition, I am sure they can agree on some way to balance power so that the Islamists do not gain the upper hand.

[scarletghoul]

He should do it before the imperialists get involved. LOL this is a joke right ?

This poll is silly. Of course we all want any bourgeois leader to lose power, but when a country is under attack by imperialism and its proxy forces (lets face it the genuine mass discontent in the syrian movement is now long buried) its a bit more complicated than 'do you like assad yes or no' ..

Really this is the kind of poll you would see on the bbc or something, and i suspect thats where you people are getting your info from too ..

I voted no, despite not liking Assad, because I support the Syrian people against imperialism, and the Syrian people support Assad as their leader.

[Grenzer]

The Ba'ath Party is sort of the only legal party there, but in the People's Council, you can also be elected as nonpartisan. The nonpartisans are usually liberals from the National Progressive Front, including socialists and maybe some communists. The Muslim Brotherhood is not allowed to operate that freely in current Syria, so if power were transferred to the People's Council, why would they allow the Islamists to gain power? As long as talks are set between the People's Council and the opposition, I am sure they can agree on some way to balance power so that the Islamists do not gain the upper hand.

Well you have to keep in mind that it is the Islamists that benefit most from the current situation. Many people want to destroy the regime, and they are going to tend to side more with the outlawed party than the legal opposition, who may be seen as collaborators. The main militant effort seems to be by the more Islamist spectrum of the population. There are reports that even foreign Jihadists are coming in to lend a hand, but it's difficult to tell whether this is authentic, or merely western media sensationalizing.

Islamism is surging through the entire so-called "Arab World" and it's hard to imagine that a law or two is going to stop them from organizing. It was much the same in Egypt, but you could be right. The amount of chauvinism the Islamists are displaying is incredible. I wouldn't be surprised if they attempted to wage a propaganda campaign against the Assad Regime's "Un-Islamic" character. It was similar in the campaign against Gaddafi, with many rebels choosing to fight him simply because they thought that he might be Jewish.

[Prometeo liberado]

Whether or not you like Assad, he is a leader without a voice at this point. He is in no position to negotiate with the opposition because the opposition doesn't want that. I suspect that there are those in his inner circle that are putting out feelers to whomever will listen, but more for personal save-your-own-ass reasons. I honestly don't believe that the majority of the people understand the forces aligned against them but Assad definitely does. He is the right man at the wrong time without an avenue to save his people. At this point the only viable choices for Syria may be a leader that has over stayed his welcome and the misery that comes with it, or exiles and reactionaries bent on destruction and revenge and the misery that comes with that. Do I think Assad should step down? Maybe a little late for that I suppose.

[Yehuda Stern]

I think Assad should be overthrown, like all other capitalist rulers.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Opposition to Assad = Radical Nationalists and Islamists. I'm not going to watch another country go down that path. The reformist path is a brightest path!


Nope! Assad must stay! Reforms must come!

[Yehuda Stern]

Oh yes. Assad has already set up several committees whose role is to examine the possibility of setting up committees to check for the possibility of maybe having reforms at some point in the future. What a bright light!

[Sasha]

The Alawite religion is pretty bizarre so I've been looking at that more. The media, and the Alawites themselves like to try to portray themselves as Shiites, despite that not being the case at all. They regard Greek philosophers as holy figures and some other weird shit like that.

Note that there are two entirely different Islamic tendency's which use the name alawi, the shia sect that is ruling Syria (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi) is something completly different that the suffi influenced Alawi which are a liberal progressive reformist major religion in mostly turkey (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi)

[Grenzer]

Note that there are two entirely different Islamic tendency's which use the name alawi, the shia sect that is ruling Syria (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi) is something completly different that the suffi influenced Alawi which are a liberal progressive reformist major religion in mostly turkey (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi)

I wasn't aware of of the latter, but it was indeed the Syrian Alawites I was studying. The religion seems completely separate from Islam imho. It's origins are completely divergent from Islam and it seems to be primarily based in Gnosticism and Platonism, but over time it has adopted practices of Christianity and Islam, and to this day many of their rituals are based far more in Christianity than Islam. They celebrate Easter and practice the ritual of communion. In addition, they have no obligation to pray as Muslims do.

It has only been over the last few decades that there has been a big push to disguise or reform the religion as a sect of Shiism, since the Assad dynasty has taken over in fact. Part of the effort included building Mosques in Alawite villages to bolster the appearance, despite the fact that they mostly go unused. The real practices of the religion are not taught to most adherents anymore in addition. Their non-Islamic rituals seem to now be confined to small numbers of the initiated. Most of what we know about the specifics of the Syrian Alawites comes from a Christian convert who detailed their practices and rituals in the mid 19th century.

It seems strange that Shiite clerics would go out of their way and try to claim the religion under their own name; but considering only about 15% of the global Muslim population are Shiites, it would seem that they are probably more concerned about having allies in a Sunni dominated Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. Over time, it may well converge with Shiite doctrine entirely.

Sorry to get off topic there, but it's a interesting thing to look at.

[KurtFF8]

There should be a third option: Don't care.

Whether the Assad regime survives or not, things won't change much. The Assad regime would just be replaced by an Islamist one, which would be worse. In either case, it doesn't seem like it brings us any closer to revolution so I'm indifferent.

This is perhaps the most dangerous position for the Left to have. Considering that the insurgents are being funded by countries like of the West (as long as being given free passage in Turkey for example): the Imperialist powers clearly are seeing an opportunity to install a friendly regime in Syria.

Now to reduce the entire unrest to an imperialist plot is of course silly. But as workers in those imperialist aggressor nations: we should oppose those attempts by our governments to install puppet regimes.

We would all like to see a workers' government replace Assad, but to support such a thing requires an examination of the real balance of forces at the moment.

[RadicalRed]

I am glad many Comrades chose Yes.

[RadicalRed]

The Fighters in Syria are mostly unemployed workers and unemployed youth.
The movement is not deeply religious ( the majority of Syrians in Homs and other big cities aren't religious)
The Opposition is led by Burhan Ghalioun who is a Leftist himself.
He is also from Homs.

[RadicalRed]

Assad posed as a reformer for too long he is not a reformer at all.
His father and him killed intellectuals, workers , communists and other leftists.
the opposition is neither Islamist or Nationalist it is diverse.
Assad ignored many peasants in the country side and workers in the cities.
Assad only supports the elite class.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I wasn't aware of of the latter, but it was indeed the Syrian Alawites I was studying. The religion seems completely separate from Islam imho. It's origins are completely divergent from Islam and it seems to be primarily based in Gnosticism and Platonism, but over time it has adopted practices of Christianity and Islam, and to this day many of their rituals are based far more in Christianity than Islam. They celebrate Easter and practice the ritual of communion. In addition, they have no obligation to pray as Muslims do.

It has only been over the last few decades that there has been a big push to disguise or reform the religion as a sect of Shiism, since the Assad dynasty has taken over in fact. Part of the effort included building Mosques in Alawite villages to bolster the appearance, despite the fact that they mostly go unused. The real practices of the religion are not taught to most adherents anymore in addition. Their non-Islamic rituals seem to now be confined to small numbers of the initiated. Most of what we know about the specifics of the Syrian Alawites comes from a Christian convert who detailed their practices and rituals in the mid 19th century.

It seems strange that Shiite clerics would go out of their way and try to claim the religion under their own name; but considering only about 15% of the global Muslim population are Shiites, it would seem that they are probably more concerned about having allies in a Sunni dominated Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. Over time, it may well converge with Shiite doctrine entirely.

Sorry to get off topic there, but it's a interesting thing to look at.

Hellenistic philosophy was very influential in the early Islamic world. Many Islamic philosophers considered the Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato to have near-prophetic status. That doesn't mean that these philosophers weren't Muslim, or that the Greek Philosophers were, merely that they saw Islam as kind of a religion grounded in the same fundamental truth that Platonic and Aristotelean philosophy was grounded on. Naturally, many other Islamic philosophers saw this as heretical, but the Hellenic thinkers were nonetheless very influential in the Caliphate.

It is too simplistic to think of religions as a form of this or that. Regional forms of Islam tended to adopt many of the philosophical and spiritual practices of the people from whom they converted. The Islamic world seems monolithic, and it probably even sees itself as such, but it is a very diverse religion. Thus it is no surprise that they give the Greek thinkers such predominance, but the obvious heterodoxy of their beliefs also explains why they are so secretive.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Assad may be an Alawite, but ideologically he is a Ba'athist, and is Ba'athism is little more than a regional variant of fascism as evidenced by Assad's war on his own people. Frankly, I hope that Assad suffers the same fate as did Mussolini.

[KurtFF8]

Wait where is the evidence that Baathism is a form of fascism? If you're just talking about because it rules a state that represses opponents, virtually all states would be fascist under that criterion.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Much has been written about the Ba'athism's shared heritage with fascism, and to be fair there are points of distinction as well as similarities. When one watches Assad and his supporters wage war on the people of Syria one is reminded of fascism in its decline. Most states only repress their opponents under extraordinary circumstances, preferring to gain the consent of the governed through cultural hegemony. When a regime totally fails in that regard and resorts to open warfare on its own people that is either fascism or something equally evil.

[Turinbaar]

Wait where is the evidence that Baathism is a form of fascism? If you're just talking about because it rules a state that represses opponents, virtually all states would be fascist under that criterion.

Michel Aflaq developed the ideology of Baathism while studying under the Vichy Regime, taking many of its ideas as the basis of his own. One of the central tenants of the system is the belief that Islam is the greatest achievement of the Arab people's and that its only flaws are its adulteration by non-arabs. Aflaq, (who was christian) who died in Iraq, was declared by their Baath party to have converted to Islam before he died. Currently the Syrian Baath party maintains imperial dominion over Lebanon with a combination of two proxy forces. First is the jihadist organization Hezbollah, and second it the Syrian Social Nationalist party, who use a red Swastika as their symbol. If Assad goes, these two forces will be invited by the Ancien Regime to be the successor.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Everybody, I never said I want the Syrian government to change, I just want the figurehead to change and for reforms to come so that the radicals will calm down. When the opposition calms down, the imperialists will stop because they know that they will no longer be able to hide behind the guise of helping a popular movement.

[Crux]

Everybody, I never said I want the Syrian government to change, I just want the figurehead to change and for reforms to come so that the radicals will calm down. When the opposition calms down, the imperialists will stop because they know that they will no longer be able to hide behind the guise of helping a popular movement.
So basically you're a reformist?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Just in this case, because the only other option is to let the more reactionary Islamists take over. There is no socialist option in this uprising.

[KurtFF8]

Much has been written about the Ba'athism's shared heritage with fascism, and to be fair there are points of distinction as well as similarities. When one watches Assad and his supporters wage war on the people of Syria one is reminded of fascism in its decline. Most states only repress their opponents under extraordinary circumstances, preferring to gain the consent of the governed through cultural hegemony. When a regime totally fails in that regard and resorts to open warfare on its own people that is either fascism or something equally evil.

This is a problematic way to promote the narrative here though: the "government versus the people" line ignores the context and complexities of the situation (and of course doesn't even take into account the class forces and where they're aligned)

[Kassad]

Everybody, I never said I want the Syrian government to change, I just want the figurehead to change and for reforms to come so that the radicals will calm down. When the opposition calms down, the imperialists will stop because they know that they will no longer be able to hide behind the guise of helping a popular movement.

Then you should probably not be a member of the PSL. When I was a member, I got a good tongue lashing for calling Ahmadinejad and Gaddafi reactionaries.

[Kassad]

Just in this case, because the only other option is to let the more reactionary Islamists take over. There is no socialist option in this uprising.

That's like saying there's no socialist option in the United States because the working class isn't organized and militant enough for it yet. Just because it isn't going to happen tomorrow doesn't mean we can't build for it and provide it as a socialist alternative. To think "communists" would be the ones saying socialism isn't possible.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Did they really believe that Ahmadenijad and Gaddafi were socially progressive?

[Ostrinski]

Taking sides between conflicting capitalist powers is dumb.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Definitely dumb when the person in question is a psychopath and mass murderer of his own people, or massively corrupt, in addition to being a capitalist.

[Kassad]

Did they really believe that Ahmadenijad and Gaddafi were socially progressive?

That's an understatement. The PSL, in the tradition of Sam Marcy, will literally defend any ruler, regardless of who they have killed or the amount of leftists they have suppressed, as long as at the present time they present an obstacle to imperialism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I remember Sam Marcy and the WWP from back in the 70s. It is emblematic of the sectarianism of the American left that as the sects multiply then seem to even become duplicative. This PSL sounds like a neo version of the WWP. WWP had the unmitigated gall to mourn the death of Kim Jong Il as if he were a real socialist rather than a murderous tyrant. Shameful.

[KurtFF8]

That's an understatement. The PSL, in the tradition of Sam Marcy, will literally defend any ruler, regardless of who they have killed or the amount of leftists they have suppressed, as long as at the present time they present an obstacle to imperialism.

This doesn't even answer the question being asked. There's a difference between opposing US intervention and supporting a country's fight against imperialist aggression and upholding a certainly leadership as something to promote.

These are straw man arguments constantly used by folks who clearly haven't bothered to even read the party's position on these questions.

Now some of this does indeed come from the Marcy tradition of course, but if you look at the articles on Syria and Libya, you won't find praise of those leaders that everyone claims the PSL "claims are progressive and defends"

[Crux]

This doesn't even answer the question being asked. There's a difference between opposing US intervention and supporting a country's fight against imperialist aggression and upholding a certainly leadership as something to promote.

These are straw man arguments constantly used by folks who clearly haven't bothered to even read the party's position on these questions.

Now some of this does indeed come from the Marcy tradition of course, but if you look at the articles on Syria and Libya, you won't find praise of those leaders that everyone claims the PSL "claims are progressive and defends"
Given what I've read from Liberation on the Iranian regime, I am pretty sure I will. Although of course they were very clear to point out Iran is not socialist. What a revelation. Alas I don't have time to go through it now. I am pretty sure Kassad knows what he is talking about though, up until not so long ago he was in the PSL after all. In case you forgot.

[KurtFF8]

Right, and I'm also a member of the PSL so I'm familiar with our position as well.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Doesn't it kind of behoove every leftist party to be openly critical of a regime which gives the death penalty to homosexuals, as well as women for various moral crimes, represses religious and ethnic minorities, and whose leader routinely denies the holocaust and meets with members of the KKK to talk about it? Does the PSL openly criticize that component of the Iranian regime? Also does it recognize the imperialism present in Iran's occupation of ethnic minority areas like the Kurdish area, where the people are routinely denied any sovereignty?

The issue with the Syrian state which is critical to remember, and this is true of Libya too, is that it was the violent crackdown by the state that initiated all the violence, and that the protests were largely non-violent before that point. Violent reactions from the state open up space for armed groups to go in, and the characteristics of these societies ensured that at least a large proportion of those who were able to take up arms lacked sufficient revolutionary consciousness. So even insofar as this revolution is going the way it is, this is only because of the nature of the state and its relation to the people. That is what I don't understand about those who see Assad or Gaddafi as the "Lesser evil" ... it seems to really ignore their role in setting up the material conditions that caused the rebellions to unfold as they did.

[KurtFF8]

That is what I don't understand about those who see Assad or Gaddafi as the "Lesser evil" ... it seems to really ignore their role in setting up the material conditions that caused the rebellions to unfold as they did.

This isn't exactly the argument though. Of course groups like the PSL don't support the nature of the Iranian regime. And the articles on Syria and Libya explicitly mention the grievances and causes for the unrest being the result of those regimes themselves. It isn't a line of "all of the bad things are the result of imperialism!"

But not all uprisings are the same, which is the fallacy of those who assume "people are doing things against a government, thus they should be uncritically supported!" And if that last quote is a caricature of that stance, then so is the "PSL or X organization support Iran" stance. NATO intervention in Libya was horrible for the people of Libya, and this is something the Left can agree upon. As leftists residing in NATO countries, our primary goal should be to oppose that intervention by imperialist powers. Sure we can point out that the targets of those imperialist countries are problematic as well, but the question is: what is the best way to express solidarity with the people in places like Iran, Libya, Syria, etc. When the propaganda campaigns against those countries are in full force while NATO is trying to build support for attacking those countries: what is the role Leftists can/should play?

[Yehuda Stern]

The Fighters in Syria are mostly unemployed workers and unemployed youth.
The movement is not deeply religious ( the majority of Syrians in Homs and other big cities aren't religious)
The Opposition is led by Burhan Ghalioun who is a Leftist himself.
He is also from Homs.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. As much as I support Assad's overthrow, the opposition is clearly dominated by radical Islamist groups funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Ghalyun (who had a more radical pose in the past but has since capitulated, including on the questions of foreign intervention and Israel) is a figurehead for them, but he is highly unrepresentative. We've all seen the pictures of FSA soldiers. We've all seen the increasing exclusion of women from the demonstrations. Give me a break.

[Connolly Was There1916]

I am really not clued up about Syria. I know I should be as it is a major issue just now. I understand that Assad is killing people etc, but one of my main questions is, will Palestine be more vulnerable to Israeli/Imperialist oppression if Assad goes? Or are the two things unrelated? Also, is it true what people have said in this thread about Assad being a Capitalist? Also will Syria be able to avoid Western involvement in the crisis?

[khad]

Muslim brotherhood gangs were known for murdering leftist students and demonstrators back before the Assads were in power. Hefiz Assad himself received a knife in the back from those thugs in the 40s.

This is one of the historical issues that Syria has to resolve for itself. To all those who would support intervention, you'd think the Western left would have learned a thing or two about the racist Islamist gangsters NATO supported in Libya.

Nope, I was too optimistic.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The regional hegemonic powers, Turkey and Saudi Arabia seem to be completely behind the rebels. NATO actually seems wary of military involvement. Speaking for myself, I would like to see Assad go in order to stop the bloodshed, but certainly do not support NATO intervention. Frankly, Turkish and Saudi involvement would seem to support Khad's assertion that Muslim Brotherhood and other reactionaries are highly involved. Seems like both sides would be highly oppressive to the Syrian people.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The "A World To Win News Service", a Maoist group has some good articles on Syria.

http://kasamaproject.org/2012/02/24/syria-no-to-assad-no-to-foreign-intervention/

http://kasamaproject.org/2012/02/24/syria-rise-of-counterrevolutionary-forces-within-opposition/

The articles are on Kasama but AWTWNS can be accessed on their yahoo group.

There are very complicated dynamics going on in Syria, Obviously no to imperialist intervention and no support to the Assad butcher regime.

For what its worth my understanding is that the Alawi sect most likely derived from a very ancient Kurdish religion, the "Cult of The Angels", as are the Yazdis and other Kurdish religions

http://www.kurdistanica.com/?q=node/101

The Alevis or Alewis may be the fifth largest religion in the world. They seem to have been assimilated into Shi'a Islam and adopted its hagiography.

This is purely of historical interest of course. From a Marxist perspective it dorsn't matter whether or not the Alawi are "real Muslims" or not.

[Grenzer]

This is perhaps the most dangerous position for the Left to have. Considering that the insurgents are being funded by countries like of the West (as long as being given free passage in Turkey for example): the Imperialist powers clearly are seeing an opportunity to install a friendly regime in Syria.

Now to reduce the entire unrest to an imperialist plot is of course silly. But as workers in those imperialist aggressor nations: we should oppose those attempts by our governments to install puppet regimes.

We would all like to see a workers' government replace Assad, but to support such a thing requires an examination of the real balance of forces at the moment.

I disagree, I really don't see how supporting the Assad regime, which is capitalist, advances the cause of revolution. Picking sides between capitalists seems to be a zero sum game most of the time.

I also think you misunderstand me a bit. I do not support Western intervention in Syria, nor do I support the Assad regime. Detractors say that this is indirectly supporting imperialism, but I don't buy this. Just because I refuse to support my some random guy getting punched in the face in a bar brawl, it doesn't mean I am 'pro-punching-people-in-the-face.' This is just a silly argument to make.

Personally, I think the most dangerous thing the left does is continually support nationalist movements, as it has proven not to be conductive to class struggle. Directly supporting capitalism does nothing to weaken the global system of capitalism. My opinion would be different if there was proof to back it up, but so far there has historically never been any advance towards proletarian revolution as the result of a nationalist movement. To say otherwise would be to endorse a third position IMHO.

[KurtFF8]

I disagree, I really don't see how supporting the Assad regime, which is capitalist, advances the cause of revolution. Picking sides between capitalists seems to be a zero sum game most of the time.

I also think you misunderstand me a bit. I do not support Western intervention in Syria, nor do I support the Assad regime. Detractors say that this is indirectly supporting imperialism, but I don't buy this. Just because I refuse to support my some random guy getting punched in the face in a bar brawl, it doesn't mean I am 'pro-punching-people-in-the-face.' This is just a silly argument to make.

Personally, I think the most dangerous thing the left does is continually support nationalist movements, as it has proven not to be conductive to class struggle. Directly supporting capitalism does nothing to weaken the global system of capitalism. My opinion would be different if there was proof to back it up, but so far there has historically never been any advance towards proletarian revolution as the result of a nationalist movement. To say otherwise would be to endorse a third position IMHO.

But who is "supporting Assad" then? The question is the question of intervention. And in terms of whether Assad "will go" or not is currently intimately tied in with the current composition of the opposition right now.

If Assad is overthrown at this moment, who would replace him? The main forces of the opposition are not radical Left wing worker organizations, but reactionary right wing groups funded by foreign interests. There is the small group made up of some secularists and Leftists that deserves some support, but unfortunately it seems they do not have even close to what could be called hegemony of the opposition.

It is nice to support a third position if it exists, but Libya provides an excellent example of supporting something that just didn't exist in the real world. When civil conflict is developing, if a third working class position isn't actually being developed then you are simply not taking a position on the actual situation.

This is problematic, as Leftists should be able to examine contexts and possible outcomes and their consequences. And right now, if the actually existing opposition won out, it would essentially be a victory for imperialism: so wouldn't you want it to not win? That doesn't mean you're promoting Assad's rule as something positive itself.

[Lynx]

Assad isn't going anywhere unless the Syrian army is destroyed. And that can only come about through foreign intervention...

The Baathists/Alawites understand that if they lose they will be massacred. There is no future for them in Syria without Assad.

[Imposter Marxist]

I tried to have an analysis of Syria from a marxist perspective, but it was really hard. Then I read why Cliff had to say about it, and it was so clear.

[Grenzer]

But who is "supporting Assad" then? The question is the question of intervention. And in terms of whether Assad "will go" or not is currently intimately tied in with the current composition of the opposition right now.

If Assad is overthrown at this moment, who would replace him? The main forces of the opposition are not radical Left wing worker organizations, but reactionary right wing groups funded by foreign interests. There is the small group made up of some secularists and Leftists that deserves some support, but unfortunately it seems they do not have even close to what could be called hegemony of the opposition.

It is nice to support a third position if it exists, but Libya provides an excellent example of supporting something that just didn't exist in the real world. When civil conflict is developing, if a third working class position isn't actually being developed then you are simply not taking a position on the actual situation.

This is problematic, as Leftists should be able to examine contexts and possible outcomes and their consequences. And right now, if the actually existing opposition won out, it would essentially be a victory for imperialism: so wouldn't you want it to not win? That doesn't mean you're promoting Assad's rule as something positive itself.

I think I understand more of what you are saying now.

The fall of the Assad regime would indeed be an imperialist victory, and a victory for capitalism. The survival of the Assad Regime would also be a victory for capitalism, from the perspective of a socialist since it also brings us no closer to revolution. There is no doubt that the survival of the Assad would be better for the working people in the short run, but it would seem to me that these are perhaps illusory gains. As neo-liberalism has shown, any reform or gain made within capitalism will be eroded away over time.

It seems to be a question of strategy. Should we engage in anti-imperialism by picking individual capitalist regimes in individual imperialist struggles, or should we focus our energies on the system which creates these things in the first place. These are important things that need to be discussed, but for now it's a moot point in a way. The position of revolutionaries today is so weak that most gestures of support are purely symbolic and in no way actually meaningful in a material sense

So in short, I agree with you that ideally the Assad regime should survive if the alternative is western interventionism and Islamism, but I also question the value in explicitly supporting a nationalist group, even if we acknowledge that they aren't progressive. It's a grey issue, and something that should be critically examined in each scenario. I appreciate your insight on the situation.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But who is "supporting Assad" then? The question is the question of intervention. And in terms of whether Assad "will go" or not is currently intimately tied in with the current composition of the opposition right now.

The material conditions of Assad's Syria led to the composition of the opposition. And the composition of the State has proven itself to be no better.



If Assad is overthrown at this moment, who would replace him? The main forces of the opposition are not radical Left wing worker organizations, but reactionary right wing groups funded by foreign interests. There is the small group made up of some secularists and Leftists that deserves some support, but unfortunately it seems they do not have even close to what could be called hegemony of the opposition.


If Assad isn't overthrown, what will happen? His government will round up thousands of Syrians, including anti-regime reactionaries and Leftists alike, and torture many and even execute some. As for the side which is a reactionary group funded by foreign sources, his government receives support from Iran and Russia. It's not like his government is this pure entity which is a popular sovereign representative for all Syrians. It is a clique which has powerful friends abroad and a few key demographics at home locked down.

On the other hand, insofar as NATO risks taking over Syria, it is because those powers exploit them. Instead of rooting for a bloody dictator, go protest the US State Department. It is the US government which is using its aid to manipulate people as proxies, while the people accepting US aid are merely desperate folks dying by the thousands (who American and European Leftists are arrogant to judge moralistically, sitting safely behind a computer thousands of miles away).



It is nice to support a third position if it exists, but Libya provides an excellent example of supporting something that just didn't exist in the real world. When civil conflict is developing, if a third working class position isn't actually being developed then you are simply not taking a position on the actual situation.


How would an Assad victory help to develop that working class opposition? And how does the PSL's position help to advance such an event?



This is problematic, as Leftists should be able to examine contexts and possible outcomes and their consequences. And right now, if the actually existing opposition won out, it would essentially be a victory for imperialism: so wouldn't you want it to not win? That doesn't mean you're promoting Assad's rule as something positive itself.

Leftists should examine the contexts and analyze the causes. Assad clearly played a critical role in setting up the conditions for this rebellion, as Gaddafi did in Libya. As for analyzing outcomes seriously, if Imperialists really went all out in Syria, there's no fucking way in hell Assad could stop them. Wanting Assad to stay in power, if the Imperialists really have it in for him, is a much less realistic position than expecting a second opposition front to emerge. That is like saying a smart anti-Imperialist position in the 2003 invasion of Iraq would have been the destruction of aggressor forces ... as if Iraq's army could do such a thing. It's much more realistic and helpful to protest and call attention to the direct Imperialist actions of the US to control Syria than the rebels themselves.

I also return to the question, what would happen if Assad is not overthrown? There's no analysis whatsoever about that outcome

[Fennec]

Yes, though we should simultaneously oppose both the regime and the Saudi-sponsored Syrian National Council/Salafi terrorists in the FSA. The uprising is being hijacked, similarly to the one in Libya (notice the appearance of racism: NATO rebels kill(ed) and torture(d) blacks, while gangs in Syria terrorise Alawis). One of the main objectives of this revolt was the liberation of Golan and ultimately all of Palestine, while we now have SNC appeasing the usurping entity just like the regime, if not worse (with the regular chastisement of Hizbullah which is, despite its reactionary policies, a resistance movement against Israel and led the glorious defence of Lebanon from the Zionist aggression in 2006).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

IMO Racism is appearing in these revolutions thanks at least in part to successful divide-and-conquer ploys by the State. In Syria, the state has done everything it can to cause conflict between the Sunni majority and the Alawite, Christian and Druze minorities, in particular the Alawites since a good portion of the State and security services are made up of them. Gaddafi did the same kinds of things to incite racism towards the immigrant minority in the country. Racism doesn't just magically appear, it is often created or even just greatly exacerbated by the State for the sake of keeping power and dividing the exploited classes. A lot of anti-black racism in America was the same way ... keep the white working class fighting the black working class (and earlier, slave class), instead of moving forward as comrades.

The same thing happened in Bahrain. Most of the Bahrain security forces are Sunni immigrants, so after the violence against protesters some Shia lynched some innocent Sunni migrant workers. The Egyptian state, too, tried to incite the same kind of thing between the Christian minority and the Muslims. It's all a ploy to stay in power, the only thing we can hope for is that a high enough proportion of the armed groups don't adopt these kinds of beliefs.


As for their judgement of Hezbollah, a lot of that probably comes from the perception that Hezbollah is siding with the Syrian state against the people. I doubt it has anything to do with their policy on Israel ...

[Fennec]

IMO Racism is appearing in these revolutions thanks at least in part to successful divide-and-conquer ploys by the State. In Syria, the state has done everything it can to cause conflict between the Sunni majority and the Alawite, Christian and Druze minorities. In particular the Alawites. Gaddafi did the same thing when he hired a bunch of Tuareg nomads from Mali to shoot rockets at Misratah from towns that were majority-black. Racism doesn't just magically appear, it is often created or even just greatly exacerbated by the State for the sake of keeping power. A lot of anti-black racism in America was the same way ... keep the white working class distracted against a false enemy.

The same thing happened in Bahrain. Most of the Bahrain security forces are Sunni immigrants, so after the violence against protesters some Shia lynched some innocent Sunni migrant workers. The Egyptian state, too, tried to incite the same kind of thing between the Christian minority and the Muslims. It's all a ploy to stay in power, the only thing we can hope for is that a high enough proportion of the armed groups don't adopt these kinds of beliefs.


As for their judgement of Hezbollah, a lot of that probably comes from the perception that Hezbollah is siding with the Syrian state against the people. I doubt it has anything to do with their policy on Israel ...

I never said racism magically appears: it is a characteristic of Salafism which justifies slavery and considers it an integral part of Islam. That's why you have NATO rebels putting blacks in Tripoli zoo cages and forcing them to eat green flags. That's why you have ethnic cleansing of Tawargha and massacring of people who fled it in refugee camps.

Hostility to Hizbullah and Iran has a lot to do with them being Shia but also because they fight Israel. Notice how Ikhwan in Egypt now suddenly insist on respecting Sadat's treaty with the Zionists despite them winning a lot of support because they seemed like an alternative to Mubarak's submissive policy (during Nasser they were a minor group). Imperialists have always supported the most reactionary forces in society.

[Kassad]

Man, a lot of you really do enjoy being inanely historically simplistic. Even the majority of the reformist left wasn't hailing NATO intervention in Libya. It's like saying that the Tea Party and the Democratic Party are in a feud in the United States and you have to pick one because there's no other glaringly obvious solution. That's fucking stupid and that political logic leads to dead ends time and time again.

To whoever asked about the PSL and the general defeatism much of the left took on when they championed Gaddafi as some glorious leader, groups like that do have their personal criticisms of regimes and leaders in Iran and Libya to some extent, but they keep them completely silent in press and in discussion. The reasoning behind this is that they view countries like Iran as under the immediate threat of intervention by imperialism (which is correct), so because they are in the crosshairs, they believe it is doing a service to imperialism to criticize say, the Islamic Republic's butchering of leftists in the thousands.

So basically the issue gets whitewashed and we're supposed to cry because a tyrant like Gaddafi gets toppled. Well, no shit. Imperialism has a role to play in almost all international affairs. Does that mean that we as communists should veil or politics and jump on the glorious leader train? Of course not. It is entirely possible to be scientific and reject intervention, as well as Assad's leadership. This leads to alienation of entire communities involved in the struggle, such as how the PSL alienated literally hundreds of Libyans in California and refused to let them sit in on the meeting about Libya.

When we allow ourselves to settle for the "lesser of two evils" logic, it's no wonder the left has made about a farts worth of progress as of late trying to make strides in a very tumultuous period.

[Devrim]

For what its worth my understanding is that the Alawi sect most likely derived from a very ancient Kurdish religion, the "Cult of The Angels", as are the Yazdis and other Kurdish religions

http://www.kurdistanica.com/?q=node/101

The Alevis or Alewis may be the fifth largest religion in the world. They seem to have been assimilated into Shi'a Islam and adopted its hagiography.

This is purely of historical interest of course. From a Marxist perspective it dorsn't matter whether or not the Alawi are "real Muslims" or not.

The Alevi and the Alewi are two different religions. The names are similar. The difference of the 'v' or 'w' is a transliteration problem, not a different name. The reason for this is that both of them take their names from the same source, Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. They both also have roots in Shia Islam, though different roots, and most main stream Sunni Muslims would see they as ghulat (literally exaggerators-practically people who have taken their Shiism so far that they are outside Islam.

Devrim

[Sasha]

The regional hegemonic powers, Turkey and Saudi Arabia seem to be completely behind the rebels. NATO actually seems wary of military involvement. Speaking for myself, I would like to see Assad go in order to stop the bloodshed, but certainly do not support NATO intervention. Frankly, Turkish and Saudi involvement would seem to support Khad's assertion that Muslim Brotherhood and other reactionaries are highly involved. Seems like both sides would be highly oppressive to the Syrian people.

Not that assad was any better, his regime has been propping up Islamist reactionaries all over the region for years, sunni hamas just denounced him but it took them well over year to ally themselves with their religious and pollitical brethren against one of their primary financial backers, Shiite (lebanese) hezbollah is still firmly in the assad camp

[m1omfg]

He is a murderous thug who killed communists. Most leftists that foolishly support him actually use the same argument as Western liberals do to advocate invasion of Iraq/Afganistan - the "but the Islamists will take over!" argument.

You see, the whole reason why many Muslims hate secularism is exactly dictators like Assad, Saddam or Mubarak.

[Sasha]

Hostility to Hizbullah and Iran has a lot to do with them being Shia but also because they fight Israel. Notice how Ikhwan in Egypt now suddenly insist on respecting Sadat's treaty with the Zionists despite them winning a lot of support because they seemed like an alternative to Mubarak's submissive policy (during Nasser they were a minor group). Imperialists have always supported the most reactionary forces in society.

And hamas was initially funded by Israel.. and most players in the region where more than happy to let assad stay until the protests turning into massacres forced their hands...
And...
And..
And..
geo-pollitics is a lot more messy than simplistic anti-imp "ideology" can deal with...

[Rafiq]

And hamas was initially funded by Israel.. and most players in the region where more than happy to let assad stay until the protests turning into massacres forced their hands...
And...
And..
And..
geo-pollitics is a lot more messy than simplistic anti-imp "ideology" can deal with...

You're spot on about Hamas, but Arab states have always(Since egypt and israels treaty) been hostile toward Syria. Especially Saudi Arabia, which despised baathism of all sorts.

[Rafiq]

Assad may be an Alawite, but ideologically he is a Ba'athist, and is Ba'athism is little more than a regional variant of fascism as evidenced by Assad's war on his own people. Frankly, I hope that Assad suffers the same fate as did Mussolini.

Ba'athism in Syria split in the early 80's between the left of capital Marxians and the Conservatives. The conservatives won the power struggle. It wasn't ever Fascist, or even right wing in origin. But it was petty bourgeois and had no roots in proletarian class struggle.

[Sasha]

You're spot on about Hamas, but Arab states have always(Since egypt and israels treaty) been hostile toward Syria. Especially Saudi Arabia, which despised baathism of all sorts.

"Despised" or even "hostile" doesn't equal "in favor of his overthrow by a chaotic unpredictable popular uprising", assad is the man they love to hate...

[GoddessCleoLover]

Query whether it is even possible for Assad to ride it out given the fact that the opposition is militarily organized and in light of the amount of bloodshed caused by the Assad forces. MY sense of it is that Assad will fall sooner rather than later.

[KurtFF8]

I think I understand more of what you are saying now.

The fall of the Assad regime would indeed be an imperialist victory, and a victory for capitalism. The survival of the Assad Regime would also be a victory for capitalism, from the perspective of a socialist since it also brings us no closer to revolution. There is no doubt that the survival of the Assad would be better for the working people in the short run, but it would seem to me that these are perhaps illusory gains. As neo-liberalism has shown, any reform or gain made within capitalism will be eroded away over time.

It seems to be a question of strategy. Should we engage in anti-imperialism by picking individual capitalist regimes in individual imperialist struggles, or should we focus our energies on the system which creates these things in the first place. These are important things that need to be discussed, but for now it's a moot point in a way. The position of revolutionaries today is so weak that most gestures of support are purely symbolic and in no way actually meaningful in a material sense

So in short, I agree with you that ideally the Assad regime should survive if the alternative is western interventionism and Islamism, but I also question the value in explicitly supporting a nationalist group, even if we acknowledge that they aren't progressive. It's a grey issue, and something that should be critically examined in each scenario. I appreciate your insight on the situation.

Indeed, the Assad regime suriving is of course not the "survival of socialism" (although major parts of industry are state owned, and a victory for the opposition would likely result in their direct privatization).

So it comes down to: where does the Left stand here?

I see a lot of "well the lesser of two evils rhetoric is unhelpful" and that it is a "form of defeatism" to simply oppose NATO. But it seems the only alternative being provided here doesn't exist too much, other than support for the NCC (which I agree with to an extent actually)


The material conditions of Assad's Syria led to the composition of the opposition. And the composition of the State has proven itself to be no better.It seems that you're just equating the two, which is problematic in my opinion. Clearly the opposition wants changes in Syria, so it's our job to examine what kinds of changes they want, and how that would affect Syria.

If those changes would likely help the people of Syria, they should be supported. But I've yet to see a convincing argument that the SNC would help Syria if it came to power.


If Assad isn't overthrown, what will happen? His government will round up thousands of Syrians, including anti-regime reactionaries and Leftists alike, and torture many and even execute some. As for the side which is a reactionary group funded by foreign sources, his government receives support from Iran and Russia. It's not like his government is this pure entity which is a popular sovereign representative for all Syrians. It is a clique which has powerful friends abroad and a few key demographics at home locked down.

On the other hand, insofar as NATO risks taking over Syria, it is because those powers exploit them. Instead of rooting for a bloody dictator, go protest the US State Department. It is the US government which is using its aid to manipulate people as proxies, while the people accepting US aid are merely desperate folks dying by the thousands (who American and European Leftists are arrogant to judge moralistically, sitting safely behind a computer thousands of miles away). Who is "rooting for a bloody dictator" exactly?

I'm so sick of this straw man. The point of anti-imperialists position in cases like this and Libya is that we need to, as revolutionaries in NATO countries, put our opposition to "our" governments' intervention first and foremost since that is our closet link to that conflict (the actions of "our" imperialist countries). You can't de-link that from organizations like the SNC which are themselves calling for intervention, and are themselves based outside of Syria.

The domestic groups opposing Assad (Which are mostly ignored by the media) are opposed to intervention (although has recently warmed to the idea of an Arab-only intervention), but I'm not sure (and it seems no one else is) how strong the NCC is.


How would an Assad victory help to develop that working class opposition? And how does the PSL's position help to advance such an event?The PSL isn't exactly "hoping for an Assad victory," nor has it "cheered Assad on." It has simply called into question the prudence of supporting the SNC and intervention, and thus opposes that intervention. On top of that, the uprising and composition of the SNC seem to not be something worth supporting.

Again, more straw man arguments.


Leftists should examine the contexts and analyze the causes. Assad clearly played a critical role in setting up the conditions for this rebellion, as Gaddafi did in Libya. As for analyzing outcomes seriously, if Imperialists really went all out in Syria, there's no fucking way in hell Assad could stop them. Wanting Assad to stay in power, if the Imperialists really have it in for him, is a much less realistic position than expecting a second opposition front to emerge. That is like saying a smart anti-Imperialist position in the 2003 invasion of Iraq would have been the destruction of aggressor forces ... as if Iraq's army could do such a thing. It's much more realistic and helpful to protest and call attention to the direct Imperialist actions of the US to control Syria than the rebels themselves.More straw man arguments. No where in the PSL's line (which I assume you're at least vaguely referring to) do they ignore the fact that these uprising are the result of domestic contradictions in those countries.


I also return to the question, what would happen if Assad is not overthrown? There's no analysis whatsoever about that outcome There are obviously quite a number of possibilities if the regime is not overthrown, one of which being the NCC's demands of a transition come to fruition not through Western intervention.

I suppose one could easily turn this around and ask what would happen if the SNC overthrew Assad. And it isn't as hard to figure that out, as Libya could serve as a good example in a similar situation.


To whoever asked about the PSL and the general defeatism much of the left took on when they championed Gaddafi as some glorious leader

When did the PSL ever champion Gaddafi as some glorious leader exactly?