Who do you support in the Syrian Civil War?

[Sir Comradical]

Basically do you support the Syrian Army? Or the imperialist backed terrorists?

And no, there's no option for "the Syrian people" or "the Syrian working class" because these categories don't have armies involved in the actual conflict.

[Grenzer]

I support neither. They both represent class alien forces.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I support the imperialist backed terrorists!

[Os Cangaceiros]

Reminds me of this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-support-t144624/index.html) thread:



If the DPRK would go to war with South Korea and the US, would you support it in a War?

Please note, that supporting it in a War doesn't mean you have to support their Regime, it simply means you would support the people of North Korea against Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists.

Yes or No,

If you have another opinion, state it.

Thanks.


Hmm. Well, I was going to vote "yes", but all of the nuance and subtlety that you just added here has made me reconsider.

People of North Korea, or mass murdering rapists...hmm...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I like the in your face approach that the imperialist backed terrorists took with their name, so I might vote for them.

[Sir Comradical]

You guys suck!

[Grenzer]

You guys suck!

You're the one scabbing for the ruling class of Syria. It's completely counter to the aim of communism, which is the abolition of the present state of affairs. In reality you're just echoing the justification put by countless other anti-worker scabs before you: the lesser evil.

[Positivist]

The LCC section of the Syrian resistance didn't start out too bad, but may have degenerated at this point. There the guys who actually organized the urban communitites which initiated the protests and which rejected foreign intervention. They've probably blended into the FSA at this point though.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't understand why some are so eager to pick a side in history as if they have too when both sides are probably shit, reactionary and so on. Thus, I don't support either.

[Sir Comradical]

You're the one scabbing for the ruling class of Syria. It's completely counter to the aim of communism, which is the abolition of the present state of affairs. In reality you're just echoing the justification put by countless other anti-worker scabs before you: the lesser evil.

Ultra-left wankery. By that logic it was wrong to support the Iraqi Army when the US Army invaded, right? After all, that would be "scabbing for the ruling class of Iraq". It's real simple. When the USA and their regional allies unleash their mercenaries on a sanctioned third world country, the only people "scabbing for the ruling class" are those unwilling to oppose imperialism.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Support the Syrian government backed by Russian imperialism or support anti-government militias backed by Western imperialism. Same imperialist shit, different national bourgeoisie.

This shouldn't be a binary question.

[International_Solidarity]

Ultra-left wankery.
If you don't like the Ultra-left, then why is it exactly that you're here? Why don't you go on forums that aren't "Ultra-left".


By that logic it was wrong to support the Iraqi Army when the US Army invaded, right? After all, that would be "scabbing for the ruling class of Iraq".
When they are being shot at by the USA, of course I support them in their self-defense and the defense of their people. However, I don't "support the Iraqi Army" at all. Many of them aided in the torture and killing of many Iraqi citizens, just as you said, they were defending "the ruling class of Iraq".
I'm a Marxist, my support lies with the Proletariat, and I also do not "support" anyone who actively works against them.
By your logic, I should support all US military actions made during WWII because they happened to be fighting Fascists.

[Geiseric]

Ultra-left wankery. By that logic it was wrong to support the Iraqi Army when the US Army invaded, right? After all, that would be "scabbing for the ruling class of Iraq". It's real simple. When the USA and their regional allies unleash their mercenaries on a sanctioned third world country, the only people "scabbing for the ruling class" are those unwilling to oppose imperialism.

You don't know what you're talking about. They aren't ultra left in this issue. Neither side should be supported, they are both bourgeois and reactionary to the core. If it were up to me, the U.S. government wouldn't of created the Free Syrian Army, but I couldn't do that. There isn't an easy way out of discussing the facts, in that capitalism, and every government that grows with it, is not to be supported by the working class, unconditionally. Unless there is a workers government, as in a government controlled by a working class party (s), communists are not to support it.

[rylasasin]

No "fuck 'em both" option?

[Ostrinski]

Ultra-left wankery. By that logic it was wrong to support the Iraqi Army when the US Army invaded, right? After all, that would be "scabbing for the ruling class of Iraq". It's real simple. When the USA and their regional allies unleash their mercenaries on a sanctioned third world country, the only people "scabbing for the ruling class" are those unwilling to oppose imperialism.Yes, it would have been wrong to support the Iraqi Army. For anyone who likes to consider themselves a communist anyway. The whole point of being class warriors is that we very much believe that our class can organize themselves, fight for their own interests, and effectively emancipate themselves, and that they don't need to subordinate their political goals to the ruling classes.

Your fetish for coalitioning with bourgeois autocrats is deeply disturbing and I sincerely hope that few others share your opinions. Stop trying to pimp out the workers struggle to the enemy. It is nothing short of treacherous.

Also, the fact that you chose to characterize Ghost Bebel as ultra left epitomizes hilarity and says waay more about your politics than his.

[Ostrinski]

This thread needs some Blake's Baby (yes, cold day in Hell, etc. etc.).

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The government is probably the "lesser evil", since the FSA are far-right theocratic terrorists. They're both pawns of imperialism, for Russia and the United States respectively, and so it's not really concerning.

[Crux]

Basically do you support the Syrian Army? Or the imperialist backed terrorists?

And no, there's no option for "the Syrian people" or "the Syrian working class" because these categories don't have armies involved in the actual conflict.
Imperialist backed terrorists all the way! Wait, which side is that again?
Oh and great thread.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What about mutual defeatism? Surely during WWI we would not be "required" to pick between the Imperialist Allies and the Imperialist Central Powers, no? When two reactionaries are battling one another, instead of rooting for one side over another? What about hoping that they wear one another out?

[#FF0000]

i'll take 'proxy wars' for 200 alex

[Mather]

Basically do you support the Syrian Army? Or the imperialist backed terrorists?

Neither.

Only the Syrian working class deserve our support. The working class are the only class that can defeat both capitalism and imperialism in Syria.

[Agathor]

I don't understand why some are so eager to pick a side in history as if they have too when both sides are probably shit, reactionary and so on. Thus, I don't support either.

This is a cop-out. The reason you won't pick a side is that you can't bear to side with anyone the US is supporting.

The left's response to the Arab Spring has left me extremely disillusioned with the prospects of political power. You're clearly too childish and emotional to take any responsible role in society.

Your knowledge of this conflict is pathetic. I would never get the impression, from reading this forum that the rebels are not a hegemonic Saudi proxy army, but rather an extremely fractious collection of a thousand-odd semi-autonomous brigades, partly composed of Syrian democrats, partly of foreign democrats, and partly of an Islamic international brigade; or that these groups are so antagonistic to each other that they openly talk about fighting each other after Assad is gone; or that they almost battled in Allepo; (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/23/syria-foreign-fighters-joining-war) or that the Farouq Brigade recently executed a leading Islamist commander for kidnapping journalists..... (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/07/167674/syria-rebels-say-they-killed-leader.html)

The Saudis are providing some weapons and money, although research shows that the FSA are still chronically under-equipped, lack basic anti-aircraft guns and training, and use a lot of weapons that they confiscated from the Syrian Army. Has this limited support turned the FSA into a Saudi proxy army? Well, did the extremely extensive French support of the American Revolution turn George Washington into a pawn of Louis XVI? Did the crucial British support of the French Resistance during WW2 turn them into a client army that would retake France for the crown after Hitler was gone?

The blindingly obvious reason that the US and Saudi Arabia are offering small support to the Syrian democrats is that their success will completely isolate Iran. Everyone who knows history and has been keeping track of the conflict can see that there is no prospect for an American take-over of Syria.

[Crux]

Basically do you support the Syrian Army? Or the imperialist backed terrorists?

And no, there's no option for "the Syrian people" or "the Syrian working class" because these categories don't have armies involved in the actual conflict.
At least we know which side you're not supporting, comrade...
Oh and your absurd oversimplification of the situation just makes me laugh. Sure there are others who do it too, on either side of your false dilemma, but come on...

[#FF0000]

The blindingly obvious reason that the US and Saudi Arabia are offering small support to the Syrian democrats is that their success will completely isolate Iran. Everyone who knows history and has been keeping track of the conflict can see that there is no prospect for an American take-over of Syria.

Who says it'll end up with an "American take-over of Syria"? We're expecting it to turn out like Libya and Afghanistan.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is a cop-out.

It's not a cop-out it's called not being a class traitor. If you want to cross class lines, that's on you and we'll see where you stand.



The reason you won't pick a side is that you can't bear to side with anyone the US is supporting.

No, the reason why I refuse to pick a side is because I refuse to side with any imperialist, capitalist, reactionary, etc. because I actually have a firm grasp on my politics.


The left's response to the Arab Spring has left me extremely disillusioned with the prospects of political power. You're clearly too childish and emotional to take any responsible role in society.

Excuse me? Not only am I extremely involved with whatever situations are going on in the area in which I live, I do try to keep up with various struggles internationally. Further, like Sinister Marxist, it would be my hope that both sides wear each other out and perhaps create an opportunity for the working class of Syria. You're also, clearly, a presumptuous ass. The "Arab Spring"? Oh, like how rebels conspired with Western imperialist powers to oust Gaddafi? Then, after doing so and all this hype about "democratic reforms," did jack shit and started instituting even more reactionary policies than the former ass of a tyrant? Same thing with Egypt? That Arab Spring? Excuse me for not being to-to optimistic about the current situation. I also did not say anything which warranted such insults and vitriol from you either.

Not to mention the fact you're obviously injecting your own shit into my post to provide a platform for your intellectual masturbation. Again, to clarify, I refuse to cross class lines and support reactionaries. If there so happened to be an opportunity or chance for the proletariat of Syria to legitimately liberate themselves and the content of their politics of their platform were progressive and or revolutionary, I would back them 100%. With all of this being said, yes, I'm not to well read on the events or the FSA due to my work schedule, had you asked me questions, I would have stated this but no, you just went off and assumed shit about myself and my political positions. Your articles are duly noted.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."-Mikhail Bakunin.

[Geiseric]

This same exact debate happened with the rebels vs. Ghadaffi, and the protesters against Mubarak. For some reason Stalinists really support these dictatorships of the buorgeois, which is somewhat confusing. I mean supporting these countries against invasion or intervention is all we can do, so that's what our stance should be.

That doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't tell any Syrians to support either side, since it would be subordinating them to the armies of capital. I would never tell any working class person to join a bourgeois army, in fact it's our duty as communists universally to oppose any wars between capitalist states, and to call for an "Unconditional end to war," as the Bolsheviks did in 1917.

[Agathor]

Who says it'll end up with an "American take-over of Syria"? We're expecting it to turn out like Libya and Afghanistan.

Libya is making progress. They've elected a moderate legislature and they're getting rid of the militias. Afghanistan is completely different. There was no popular uprising there - that one actually was a foreign invasion with a proxy army (Northern Alliance warlords).

[Agathor]

No, the reason why I refuse to pick a side is because I refuse to side with any imperialist, capitalist, reactionary, etc. because I actually have a firm grasp on my politics.


So when Marx backed the British colonization of India and the capitalist, imperialist unionists in the American civil war, he was just a class traitor who didn't have a firm grasp on his politics? Ditto the Parisian left and the Franco-Prussian War. You are confusing sturdy political foundations with unshakable dogmatism.



Not only am I extremely involved with whatever situations are going on in the area in which I live, I do try to keep up with various struggles internationally. Further, like Sinister Marxist, it would be my hope that both sides wear each other out and perhaps create an opportunity for the working class of Syria.

The working class of Syria is fighting alongside other classes - ala 1789 - to get rid of Assad. I've heard enough marxist jargon to know that "an opportunity for the working class of Syria" really means "an opportunity for the working class of Syria to do this in accordance with my beliefs".


Oh, like how rebels conspired with Western imperialist powers to oust Gaddafi? Then, after doing so and all this hype about "democratic reforms," did jack shit and started instituting even more reactionary policies than the former ass of a tyrant? Same thing with Egypt?.

Egypt currently has an elected legislature and an elected head of state, so does Libya. Again, I think the problem is that they didn't elect the people you'd have liked them to elect, therefore it couldn't possibly have been democratic. Incidentally this is the way imperialist intellectuals analyse world politics: Chavez is a leftist so by definition he was elected undemocratically.



Not to mention the fact you're obviously injecting your own shit into my post to provide a platform for your intellectual masturbation. Again, to clarify, I refuse to cross class lines and support reactionaries. If there so happened to be an opportunity or chance for the proletariat of Syria to legitimately liberate themselves and the content of their politics of their platform were progressive and or revolutionary, I would back them 100%. With all of this being said, yes, I'm not to well read on the events or the FSA due to my work schedule, had you asked me questions, I would have stated this but no, you just went off and assumed shit about myself and my political positions. Your articles are duly noted.


I assumed only that you were ignorant of the conflict - which you just admitted.



"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."-Mikhail Bakunin.

That seems irrelevant.

[Agathor]

This same exact debate happened with the rebels vs. Ghadaffi, and the protesters against Mubarak. For some reason Stalinists really support these dictatorships of the buorgeois, which is somewhat confusing. I mean supporting these countries against invasion or intervention is all we can do, so that's what our stance should be.

That doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't tell any Syrians to support either side, since it would be subordinating them to the armies of capital. I would never tell any working class person to join a bourgeois army, in fact it's our duty as communists universally to oppose any wars between capitalist states, and to call for an "Unconditional end to war," as the Bolsheviks did in 1917.

And as Marx didn't do in 1860, and as the Parisian Communards didn't do in 1871. The price of Lenin's unconditional end to all wars would have been, had the central powers succeeded, the forfeit of the proletariat of western Russia into capitalist, and soon to be fascist Germany. That seems like a cop-out.

It is our duty as communists to analyze these events like adults.

[Grenzer]

So when Marx backed the British colonization of India and the capitalist, imperialist unionists in the American civil war, he was just a class traitor who didn't have a firm grasp on his politics? Ditto the Parisian left and the Franco-Prussian War. You are confusing sturdy political foundations with unshakable dogmatism.

That isn't even remotely equitable. This is just one giant fucking strawman. The proletariat was far smaller then; the capacity for an international dictatorship of the proletariat did not yet exist in the 1860's, nor did the productive infrastructure for socialism. This is social-democratic logic you're using. The 19th century was an entirely different epoch of capitalism which required different strategies and tactics.. they have longed since stopped applying to the current situation. You are confusing contextual action with shitty politics.

[Rafiq]

Lenin acknowledged that capitalism as a system no longer had the capacity to birth any sort of progress only a bit before World War one. During Marx's time, capitalism wasn't necessarily, to put it shortly, a "bad thing", to add to Bebel's point

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Agathor]

Let's examine the composition of the rebels. The Free Syrian army has 100,000 soldiers who defected when they were ordered to fire on protesters. It is led by a former colonel who defected at huge personal risk and cost. The other significant group is the Syria Liberation Army, which consists of around 30,000 mostly working-class youths who picked up guns when the revolution turned into a civil war. There are reportedly around 70,000 more who want to join but can't because the Saudi arms that are apparently flooding to the Syrian rebels haven't arrived yet or something. There are a few thousand foreign Mujahideen fantasists who don't get on with the rest of the rebels. There are some sectional squabbles amongst the rebels but unlike in Libya the different tribes and factions have united in popular armies, rather than forming sectarian militias.

There is a Syrian National Council in Turkey which acts as a government in exile. It is composed of nine factions united to oppose Assad. These factions represent intellectuals, academics, long-time dissidents, some moderate islamists and some socialists. It is led by Abdulbaset Sieda, a Kurdish dissident intellectual and academic. If this is an imperialist proxy government then it's a very strange one. The Contra high command, for example, consisted of leading businessmen and former Samozist officers. I don't think there were any historians, human rights lawyers or socialists kicking around.

[Agathor]

the capacity for an international dictatorship of the proletariat did not yet exist in the 1860's, nor did the productive infrastructure for socialism.

Sorry, you believe that there was less chance for socialism in France in 1871 than you currently see in Syria?

[Agathor]

Lenin acknowledged that capitalism as a system no longer had the capacity to birth any sort of progress only a bit before World War one. During Marx's time, capitalism wasn't necessarily, to put it shortly, a "bad thing", to add to Bebel's point

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Well, Marx was completely wrong about India, but I was using those examples to show that leftists don't have to dogmatically oppose every event that isn't a socialist revolution.

[doesn't even make sense]

This entire dichotomy is so fucking stupid. Logically speaking both the supporters of the rebels and supporters of the government could be right about the consequences of one side or another winning the civil war. And that should make you all wonder what you are really arguing about.

In either case, people are taking positions that are ultimately realpolitik based on extrapolation and hypotheticals and treating them as matters of principle. To me, it seems like a lot of people are cherry picking which factors to emphasize and which to ignore based mainly on aesthetic preferences and this weird need to have a concrete opinion about everything the world media currently consider a major issue.

What is absolutely the most baffling to me, however, is seeing people who in other circumstances lambast people they disagree with for supporting various bourgeois reform movements in troubled peripheral countries in the past are now enthusiastically backing...a bourgeois reform movement. It's pretty neat.

[Geiseric]

Anyways, my stance is for both of the armies to stop fighting, since the working class and poor of Syria are the ones who suffer. Only the working class is capable of enforcing an end to the civil war, by ousting both armies, and establishing a new government.

Until that happens, either side is worth jack shit, as their interests are vested in those of foreign imperialists.

[Geiseric]

I'm giving real world practical support to any working class organizations who are trying not to be blown up or shot by the Islamist rebels or Assad's thug army. I don't know the names of the working class groups, but I refuse to support either of the capitalist forces.

I know the U.S. is giving support to the rebels and I know Russia is giving support to Assad. So it comes down to Russia & Iran vs. U.S. & NATO. I support maintaining peace between the psychopaths in charge of the world's armies.

[Sir Comradical]

If you don't like the Ultra-left, then why is it exactly that you're here? Why don't you go on forums that aren't "Ultra-left".

When they are being shot at by the USA, of course I support them in their self-defense and the defense of their people. However, I don't "support the Iraqi Army" at all. Many of them aided in the torture and killing of many Iraqi citizens, just as you said, they were defending "the ruling class of Iraq".
I'm a Marxist, my support lies with the Proletariat, and I also do not "support" anyone who actively works against them.
By your logic, I should support all US military actions made during WWII because they happened to be fighting Fascists.


Yes, it would have been wrong to support the Iraqi Army. For anyone who likes to consider themselves a communist anyway. The whole point of being class warriors is that we very much believe that our class can organize themselves, fight for their own interests, and effectively emancipate themselves, and that they don't need to subordinate their political goals to the ruling classes.

Your fetish for coalitioning with bourgeois autocrats is deeply disturbing and I sincerely hope that few others share your opinions. Stop trying to pimp out the workers struggle to the enemy. It is nothing short of treacherous.

Also, the fact that you chose to characterize Ghost Bebel as ultra left epitomizes hilarity and says waay more about your politics than his.

Of course you'd support the Iraqi Army in that case. In the opening stages of that war there were battles between Coalition forces and the Iraqi Army. If you want the Coalition forces to lose, then it means supporting the Iraqi Army. Whether you political support Saddam is irrelevant.


You don't know what you're talking about. They aren't ultra left in this issue. Neither side should be supported, they are both bourgeois and reactionary to the core. If it were up to me, the U.S. government wouldn't of created the Free Syrian Army, but I couldn't do that. There isn't an easy way out of discussing the facts, in that capitalism, and every government that grows with it, is not to be supported by the working class, unconditionally. Unless there is a workers government, as in a government controlled by a working class party (s), communists are not to support it.


What about mutual defeatism? Surely during WWI we would not be "required" to pick between the Imperialist Allies and the Imperialist Central Powers, no? When two reactionaries are battling one another, instead of rooting for one side over another? What about hoping that they wear one another out?

And no, there's no comparison with WW1 because Syria is not an imperialist country. It's a third world country with a per capita GDP of a thousand bucks and it's being bullied into submission by US imperialism, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.


At least we know which side you're not supporting, comrade...
Oh and your absurd oversimplification of the situation just makes me laugh. Sure there are others who do it too, on either side of your false dilemma, but come on...

We're spectators not agents. The people who can push the outcome of this war in a leftist direction are people INSIDE Syria. And if leftists there haven't created their own independent army that has completely disassociated itself from the FSA, then there's no point talking about the Syrian working class taking power. Sorry to disappoint, but we're not the vanguard for the Syrian working class, we're spectators. Our job should be to oppose imperialism, i.e. US intervention.

[Sir Comradical]

This is a cop-out. The reason you won't pick a side is that you can't bear to side with anyone the US is supporting.

The left's response to the Arab Spring has left me extremely disillusioned with the prospects of political power. You're clearly too childish and emotional to take any responsible role in society.

Your knowledge of this conflict is pathetic. I would never get the impression, from reading this forum that the rebels are not a hegemonic Saudi proxy army, but rather an extremely fractious collection of a thousand-odd semi-autonomous brigades, partly composed of Syrian democrats, partly of foreign democrats, and partly of an Islamic international brigade; or that these groups are so antagonistic to each other that they openly talk about fighting each other after Assad is gone; or that they almost battled in Allepo; (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/23/syria-foreign-fighters-joining-war) or that the Farouq Brigade recently executed a leading Islamist commander for kidnapping journalists..... (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/07/167674/syria-rebels-say-they-killed-leader.html)

Yes and the most bloodthirsty reactionary ones will get the most outside help. After all, US imperialism doesn't go around aiding democratic/leftist forces. In Afghanistan in the 80s, there were Maoists who sided with the islamist thugs and they ended up getting slaughtered by the mujahideen who received the bulk of CIA-ISI assistance.

As for your Farouq brigade, they too are a pack of sectarian Islamists (http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31228&lan=eng)

"While the Syrian opposition forces have been guilty of violence, abuse, torture - as stated in a report released yesterday by the NGO "Human Rights Watch" - in Homs there is "an ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians", carried out by some Islamist members of the "Brigade Faruq". So says a note sent to Fides by some sources in the Syrian Orthodox Church, which includes 60% of Christians in Syria. Militant armed Islamists - says the note - have managed to expel 90% of Christians in Homs and confiscated their homes by force. According to Orthodox Metropolitan sources, the militants went door to door in the neighborhoods of Hamidiya and Bustan al-Diwan, forcing Christians to flee, without giving them the chance to take their belongings. In the "Faruq Brigade", note other sources, there seems to be armed elements of various Wahhabi groups and mercenaries from Libya and Iraq."

[Ostrinski]

Of course you'd support the Iraqi Army in that case. In the opening stages of that war there were battles between Coalition forces and the Iraqi Army. If you want the Coalition forces to lose, then it means supporting the Iraqi Army. Whether you political support Saddam is irrelevant.nope.avi

Stop treating everything like a football match where one is encouraged to casually take sides in events that don't concern the question of worker's politics. It only trivializes the whole thing. There is no stance to be had, none. I know that a class traitor such as yourself would naturally have a great deal of trouble comprehending the concept of abstention from bourgeois political affairs, but you're going to have to meet us half way here.

In fact, that you can't even meaningfully formulate a coherent argument in support of your god awful politics is quite demonstrative of how few fucks you give about both the situation in Syria and the Middle East and the quality of your strategic line in general.

I also got a kick out of you conflating opposition to US intervention and support for Assad. Please just stop :laugh:.

[Ostrinski]

Also, can a mod or admin please close this hilariously false dichotomy of a poll.

[Sir Comradical]

nope.avi

Stop treating everything like a football match where one is encouraged to casually take sides in events that don't concern the question of worker's politics. It only trivializes the whole thing. There is no stance to be had, none. I know that a class traitor such as yourself would naturally have a great deal of trouble comprehending the concept of abstention from bourgeois political affairs, but you're going to have to meet us half way here.

In fact, that you can't even meaningfully formulate a coherent argument in support of your god awful politics is quite demonstrative of how few fucks you give about both the situation in Syria and the Middle East and the quality of your strategic line in general.

I also got a kick out of you conflating opposition to US intervention and support for Assad. Please just stop :laugh:.

So when the US invades a country, you refuse to take sides with the army of the invaded country? Cool story, bro.

[Grenzer]

Sorry, you believe that there was less chance for socialism in France in 1871 than you currently see in Syria?

Actually, yes.

Since you're a bourgeois liberal, it's not surprising that you would fail to understand that political events do not occur within the isolation of a national context, but on a greater international scale as well. Unfortunately for those with a bourgeois viewpoint, they are incapable of seeing politics as anything that happens beyond a mere national scope.

The victory of the proletariat in Syria would reverberate throughout the world, since capitalism is fundamentally a highly interconnected, international system; and it's only become more so since 1917. The bourgeoisie only managed to hold on shakily last time; it's hard to imagine that a new wave of international revolution wouldn't bring the capitalist house of card tumbling to the ground.

The question is not whether Syria is ready for socialism, but whether the world is ready for it.

[Le Socialiste]

The situation in Syria is far more complex than what people have said here, with the exception of a few. Thus it becomes necessary to look at each and every side, not as monolithic entities devoid of internal diversity and differences, but as an ever shifting movement composed of an array of class forces. In many ways Agathor is correct - there are a lot of pieces moving around, ranging from the Free Syrian Army to the Local Coordinating Committees based in the communities and neighborhoods throughout Syria. Even these two, arguably the backbone of the movement to oust Assad, are made up a variety of political and ideological differences. Y'all back the Syrian working-class? It's in the Local Coordinating Committees, the same councils that organized - and continue to organize - regular street protests against the current regime, provide for community members, and work in tandem with the FSA and a number of other armed groups. The FSA isn't altogether unified in its aims and longterm purpose; rather, its composition (loosely-connected groups of fighters) renders it a diverse body centralized around Assad's ouster.

The international community has little to no influence over the course of the civil war, though they may try to sway it one way or another. The U.S. and its allies have only been able to supply small firearms through countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, but the bulk of these weapons are acquired via the black market. While the powers-that-be would like nothing more than a movement dominated by friendly interests, their reach and pull are minimal at best. They're more interested in overthrowing Assad, and are less concerned with the composition of a movement that is beyond their control (at the moment).

Does this mean I support the rebels? I think its a little more complicated than that. We can't always cast things in black and white, which many of you are. The reality is a mass movement has arisen in Syria after months of development and struggle. Now there are groups and individuals within the movement that are less savory than others (Islamic fundamentalists, conservatives, etc. come to mind), but these factors shouldn't discredit the rest in our eyes. Our response needs to be readily revised and adaptable in accordance with what's happening on the ground; furthermore, the situation requires a more nuanced approach that is severely lacking in most people's responses. I don't support Assad - anyone on this site who does has a severe misunderstanding of Marxism, including what it is and means in relation to past and present events. I don't support those elements within the anti-Assad movement that would readily subvert and manipulate it to serve theirs and other's interests. But I do support what's grown to be a mass growing movement that has unified and emboldened an entire class, resulting in organic, embryonic formations of working people utilizing their strength via committees and armed resistance.

Consider this passage from a July edition of Frontline, a leftist newspaper in Syria that highlights how certain groups and councils within the FSA operate (this particular military council, based in Deir el-Zour, gave the following orders to FSA fighters):


--It is forbidden to set up checkpoints and inconvenience people.

-- It is forbidden to kill regime informants, but if you catch one, you can beat them and then deliver them to their family.

-- It is forbidden to interfere with or attack Alawites in Deir Ezzour.

-- Members of the FSA must pay for anything received from the people either by paying cash, or working: harvest the fields, build [or help rebuild], etc.

Or this Code of Conduct (https://www.facebook.com/notes/لجان-التنسيق-المحلية-في-سوريا/new-battalions-sign-the-code-of-conduct/508232342537240), published by the Local Coordinating Committees, which includes a pledge by FSA fighters not to "exercise reprisals on the basis of ethnicity, sect, religion or any other basis." Other pledges and regulations include:


Article IV
I pledge not to practice any form of torture, rape, mutilation, or degradation. I will preserve prisoners’ rights and will not exercise any of the above practices in order to obtain confessions.

...

Article VI
I will not engage in any practice that leads to the physical torture or murder of prisoners or informants, and I will not participate in any public execution.

Article VII
I pledge not to engage in any form of theft or looting on the pretext that I am helping to finance the armed struggle. I pledge not to take any person hostage for ransom.

Yes, there are a lot of factors and elements that we should and must highlight in regards to the Syrian revolution, namely the small but sizable presence of fundamentalists and proxy sectarian groups representing the interests of their foreign backers. While the movement's future remains to be seen, what's clear is that the working-class has been deeply and irrefutably involved in its development. If or when Assad is overthrown, it is the task of these bodies to continue their struggle, to deepen and expand it beyond its present lines. They have the means for doing so, it's just a question of the balance of forces in the country and the global community, and what those forces are willing to do to in the near to longterm.

[Le Socialiste]

So when the US invades a country, you refuse to take sides with the army of the invaded country? Cool story, bro.

You've got shit politics...bro.

[Sir Comradical]

Who modified my poll? I don't know how to modify my own damn poll.

[Ostrinski]

So when the US invades a country, you refuse to take sides with the army of the invaded country? Cool story, bro.Depends on the political content of said army really. But generally speaking no. Obviously because these armies in question represent the armed wing of the bourgeois state there, and their political content is most often dependent upon the characteristic. Especially since non-bourgeois states are few and far between nowadays, arguably non-existent.

[Sir Comradical]

Depends on the political content of said army really. But generally speaking no. Obviously because these armies in question represent the armed wing of the bourgeois state there, and their political content is most often dependent upon the characteristic. Especially since non-bourgeois states are few and far between nowadays, arguably non-existent.

Do you see the world as being divided into imperialist states and semi-colonies?

[Sam_b]

We're spectators not agents. The people who can push the outcome of this war in a leftist direction are people INSIDE Syria. And if leftists there haven't created their own independent army that has completely disassociated itself from the FSA, then there's no point talking about the Syrian working class taking power. Sorry to disappoint, but we're not the vanguard for the Syrian working class, we're spectators. Our job should be to oppose imperialism, i.e. US intervention.

Our job is to oppose imperialism, I agree - that's why we should make the call for US/NATO forces to stay out of Syria. Opposing imperialism, however, does not mean supporting Assad.

You say we are spectators yet you are supporting an Assad victory. You've flatly contradicted yourself - if you are a spectator on the Syrian situation why are you cheering on one side over another?

[Sir Comradical]

Our job is to oppose imperialism, I agree - that's why we should make the call for US/NATO forces to stay out of Syria. Opposing imperialism, however, does not mean supporting Assad.

You say we are spectators yet you are supporting an Assad victory. You've flatly contradicted yourself - if you are a spectator on the Syrian situation why are you cheering on one side over another?

You're taking me out of context, it makes little sense to take positions like "I support the working class" because there unfortunately isn't a proletarian army fighting in Syria. As such we, as spectators, can only decide who we support based on the forces who are actually fighting. If we were in Syria, we'd have some agency in determining the outcome of events.

[Crux]

We're spectators not agents. The people who can push the outcome of this war in a leftist direction are people INSIDE Syria. And if leftists there haven't created their own independent army that has completely disassociated itself from the FSA, then there's no point talking about the Syrian working class taking power. Sorry to disappoint, but we're not the vanguard for the Syrian working class, we're spectators. Our job should be to oppose imperialism, i.e. US intervention.
Speak for yourself. And yes, that's why your position is a false dilemma.
There's no point in talking about the Syrian working class? For you perhaps. That doesn't make you a very perceptive spectator though.

[Rafiq]

Well, Marx was completely wrong about India, but I was using those examples to show that leftists don't have to dogmatically oppose every event that isn't a socialist revolution.

We do now, though, especially in this case, as the proletariat are a fully developed class in Syria.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Magón]

Basically do you support the Syrian Army? Or the imperialist backed terrorists?

And no, there's no option for "the Syrian people" or "the Syrian working class" because these categories don't have armies involved in the actual conflict.

I support neither the FSA or Assad.

I would think someone who claims to be for Working Class empowerment/control, and a Communist, would choose the Syrian people/working class, over the FSA or Assad. Is there something about the Syrian People/Working Class, that you find you're unable to put your support behind them, or is just because they don't have a military force to use against the FSA/Assad?

[Ostrinski]

Do you see the world as being divided into imperialist states and semi-colonies?Surely there are imperialist states, i.e. states that facilitate economic expansion, as well as states that are subordinate to the former. Which is quite irrelevant. You don't support the smaller bourgeois regimes, whether or not they oppose the imperial ambitions of the larger ones, because the workers in those smaller states have no interests being represented by it.

If you're going to be consistent with this kind of logic you might as well throw in a bid for the liberal parties on the premise of lesser-of-two-evilsism.

[Agathor]

Yes and the most bloodthirsty reactionary ones will get the most outside help. After all, US imperialism doesn't go around aiding democratic/leftist forces. In Afghanistan in the 80s, there were Maoists who sided with the islamist thugs and they ended up getting slaughtered by the mujahideen who received the bulk of CIA-ISI assistance.

As for your Farouq brigade, they too are a pack of sectarian Islamists (http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31228&lan=eng)

"While the Syrian opposition forces have been guilty of violence, abuse, torture - as stated in a report released yesterday by the NGO "Human Rights Watch" - in Homs there is "an ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians", carried out by some Islamist members of the "Brigade Faruq". So says a note sent to Fides by some sources in the Syrian Orthodox Church, which includes 60% of Christians in Syria. Militant armed Islamists - says the note - have managed to expel 90% of Christians in Homs and confiscated their homes by force. According to Orthodox Metropolitan sources, the militants went door to door in the neighborhoods of Hamidiya and Bustan al-Diwan, forcing Christians to flee, without giving them the chance to take their belongings. In the "Faruq Brigade", note other sources, there seems to be armed elements of various Wahhabi groups and mercenaries from Libya and Iraq."

That story was contested by some local Jesuits and Catholics who say that the Christians fled before the FSA arrived. (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13804)

[Agathor]

We do now, though, especially in this case, as the proletariat are a fully developed class in Syria.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

You'd expect that a fully-developed proletariat in the Marxists sense would be organized in left-wing parties, wouldn't you?

[Agathor]

Actually, yes.

You must be joking. France had a proletarian revolution in 1871 and Syria today doesn't even have any mass-based left-wing parties. Anyway Marx actually thought the world was ready for a socialist revolution within his lifetime. And he supported these 'bourgeois' wars anyway. It's almost like you and him have different ideologies.



Since you're a bourgeois liberal


Jesus Christ, grow up you fucking infant.




The victory of the proletariat in Syria would reverberate throughout the world, since capitalism is fundamentally a highly interconnected, international system; and it's only become more so since 1917. The bourgeoisie only managed to hold on shakily last time; it's hard to imagine that a new wave of international revolution wouldn't bring the capitalist house of card tumbling to the ground.

Any grand evidence for these grand claims?

[Sam_b]

it makes little sense to take positions like "I support the working class" because there unfortunately isn't a proletarian army fighting in Syria.

I support the working class in Britain and there isn't a proletarian army fighting there. Why don't you?

[Break Free1017]

It amuses me that people will actually use the propaganda term "terrorists."

[human strike]

And so in their endless struggle to feel relevant, socialists of all descriptions debated the Syrian conflict as if their opinion is even slightly consequential. Because after all, revolution is about winning the argument and spectating struggle like you've got a Sky Sports subscription. "So tell us what you think? Is their attack strong enough? Or should the Rebels splash out on some militant Libyan Islamist signings to compliment their strikers from midfield? Vote in our online poll!"

I don't really know what's going on in Syria - I don't think many people do - so I don't pretend to. I'm quite happy not to have an opinion on the matter. Now the bureaucracies, disciplinary regimes and capitalist constraints I have to deal with on an everyday basis, those I have lots of opinions on!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And no, there's no comparison with WW1 because Syria is not an imperialist country. It's a third world country with a per capita GDP of a thousand bucks and it's being bullied into submission by US imperialism, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.


Syria being a 3rd world country doesn't mean defeatism doesn't apply. Defeatism should be the principle whenever 2 reactionary forces are fighting one another, or 2 forces where reactionaries dominate the discourse. In the case of Assad and Sunni fundamentalist rebels supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, there really is no good option. The point is that an alternative to both is needed and one can only emerge when the two are weak and utterly discredited. In addition, both sides are participating in sectarian violence, so again, it would be good to see both sides weakened.

Anyhow, if your standard of Imperialism gives Qatar status as an Imperialist country, then Syria is too due to their meddling in their neighbors for geopolitical benefit.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The international community has little to no influence over the course of the civil war, though they may try to sway it one way or another. The U.S. and its allies have only been able to supply small firearms through countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, but the bulk of these weapons are acquired via the black market. While the powers-that-be would like nothing more than a movement dominated by friendly interests, their reach and pull are minimal at best. They're more interested in overthrowing Assad, and are less concerned with the composition of a movement that is beyond their control (at the moment).
Good post, comrade, I learned a lot about the FSA that I didn't know before.

I would perhaps contest this point though. France, the US and Britain wanted to conduct operations in Syria in a similar manner to what they did in Libya (as in air strikes, air superiority and special forces insertions etc). Russia is invested in Syria and the Assad regime allows them use of mediterranean ports for their naval vessels amongst other business arrangements. In a sense the international influence has been Russia preventing Western intervention more than anything and they even started arranging for spetsnaz groups to conduct 'counterterrorism' within Syria (essentially aiding the government army).

[Sam_b]

And so in their endless struggle to feel relevant, socialists of all descriptions debated the Syrian conflict as if their opinion is even slightly consequential. Because after all, revolution is about winning the argument and spectating struggle like you've got a Sky Sports subscription.

I think it's absolutely fine to have an opinion about what is happening to our class in Syria. Just because they're in a country that I'm not in doesn't stop them being fellow workers and worth caring about.

[human strike]

Of course, but it's this picking sides and winning debates nonsense...

[Sam_b]

I have no idea what you've got against winning debates, seeing as getting people round to our side builds ideological unity that can move the class forward.

[Sasha]

although i will give this a thread of its own i thought i'll just drop this here; http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/the-ultimate-assault-charting-syrias-use-of-rape-to-terrorize-its-people/259669/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/rape-abuse-syria-detention-centers-video_n_1919656.html (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/the-ultimate-assault-charting-syrias-use-of-rape-to-terrorize-its-people/259669/)
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/15/syria-sexual-assault-detention

the problem with asking with "are you with us or the terrorists" is that sooner or later one must ask "who where the terrorists again?"

[Rafiq]

You'd expect that a fully-developed proletariat in the Marxists sense would be organized in left-wing parties, wouldn't you?

Sorry, I believe you have misunderstood me. I did not mean fully developed in terms of class consciousness, but fully developed as a class, i.e. the Industrial proletariat. As Communists, we choose sides on the basis of class interest, not "Which sidez offerz morez libartiez" (Even though, if you were going to adhere to such a position, then neither would suit you, anyway).

[Geiseric]

I don't know where communists, whose goal is supposed to be the abolition of the bourgeois state and capitalism, got the idea that supporting a bourgeois state that represents the goals of the ruling class is a good stance. I mean you're basically saying that "A capitalist state rooted with Syrian capitalists funded and supportive of one bloc of imperialist countries is better than a different one with more religeous sounding folk funded and supportive of others." There isn't any difference between both of the parties, they are around as proxys in an imperialist conflict.

[Le Socialiste]

I would perhaps contest this point though. France, the US and Britain wanted to conduct operations in Syria in a similar manner to what they did in Libya (as in air strikes, air superiority and special forces insertions etc). Russia is invested in Syria and the Assad regime allows them use of mediterranean ports for their naval vessels amongst other business arrangements. In a sense the international influence has been Russia preventing Western intervention more than anything and they even started arranging for spetsnaz groups to conduct 'counterterrorism' within Syria (essentially aiding the government army).

Oh, I'm sure the U.S. and its allies would like nothing more than to militarily intervene under the guise of "humanitarian interventionism", but can they? Perhaps, but Libya highlighted the cost and extent necessary for these tactics to work - it also happened in the midst of an arguably different period or phase of the 'Arab Spring', where the movements were undergoing further development, repression, etc. and foreign governments and their financial benefactors were more or less past the shock of the moment and readying a response. Russia and China lost out big time after Qaddafi's overthrow. Prior deals and agreements with the Libyan government were scrapped or scaled back, while countries like Italy, France, and the U.S. received and distributed amongst themselves the largest shares and pieces of the country's economy. For Russia, Syria is a so-called 'line in the sand' which cannot be crossed unless they're given something equal to our greater than what they have in the country. So Russia's presence certainly has given some members of the anti-Assad coalition pause, at least in terms of foreign intervention. But there's other factors at play.

Syria is a different beast, it's not Libya. They share certain similarities, but the differences outweigh these. In Libya we saw a resurgence of tribal sectarianism, whereas in Syria tribal, cultural, and ethnic groups have banded together in opposition to Assad. The FSA and LCCs are notable as well, which I've pointed out earlier. The U.S. simply doesn't have a suitable pretext or ability to militarily engage Assad, nor can it lock on to any one anti-government group due to their sheer diversity and differences. The Syrian army is also better equipped than Libya's rendering any potential no-fly zones difficult (not to mention dangerous). There are so many moving pieces in the conflict, and the West and its proxy forces operating through Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are on the margins of the movement (that said, we shouldn't underestimate the fact that they are there).

[Agathor]

Sorry, I believe you have misunderstood me. I did not mean fully developed in terms of class consciousness, but fully developed as a class, i.e. the Industrial proletariat. As Communists, we choose sides on the basis of class interest, not "Which sidez offerz morez libartiez" (Even though, if you were going to adhere to such a position, then neither would suit you, anyway).

Doesn't Syria have quite a small industrial proletariat? I thought their economy was mostly services and tourism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The war is between the Syrian government and Moslem terrorists/imperialist nations. I support the Syrian government in the war.

[Agathor]

The war is between the Syrian government and Moslem terrorists/imperialist nations. I support the Syrian government in the war.

It's incredible that this stuff passes without comment. It is a matter of fact that the Mujahideen constitute an extremely small and unpopular segment of the rebels and that the involvement and influence of imperialist nations is negligible.

[revhiphop]

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, comrade

[Devrim]

Doesn't Syria have quite a small industrial proletariat? I thought their economy was mostly services and tourism.

No, the proportion of Syrian workers in manufacturing is 27%, which is higher than in, for example, the US. There is hardly any Tourism in Syria, and the biggest sector of the economy, financially, is obviously oil, and petrol based products.

Devrim

[Agathor]

No, the proportion of Syrian workers in manufacturing is 27%, which is higher than in, for example, the US. There is hardly any Tourism in Syria, and the biggest sector of the economy, financially, is obviously oil, and petrol based products.

Devrim

Wikipedia puts it at 16% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria)

Edit: You appear to be mistaking GPD by sector for labour force by sector.

[Devrim]

Wikipedia puts it at 16% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria)

Edit: You appear to be mistaking GPD by sector for labour force by sector.

I feel pretty foolish now. I am blaming the source I checked. Perhaps I should have checked more than one though.

However, having done a more thorough investigation the most up to date figures seem to put it at 17%, which is in the same sort of league as the UK (18%). It is not in anyway a country without an industrial working class.

Devrim

[Agathor]

But the industrial working class is far smaller than it was in Marx's time. In the late eighteenth to early twentieth century it grew from around 30% to 40% of the workforce in Britain, USA and Germany, then began to decline with automation, which Marx didn't predict.

The large-scale industrial proletariat is gone and it isn't coming back. We have to stop putting it at the centre of our politics - it's ridiculous.

[Delenda Carthago]

Al Assad is not my cup of tea, but sure as hell I support him over the muslim dark-agers.

http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20111012&t=2&i=514645948&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=460&pl=300&r=BTRE79B142R00

Al Assad has the support of the most progressive parts of the Syrian society. A society that for ages had different reliigons and tribes living in peace with each other. The victory of the fuckin theocrats would only bring misery and horror.

[Sasha]

Al Assad has the support of the most progressive parts of the Syrian society.

newspeak for he bought off the middle and upper class and let the proletariat rot... what a marxist position...
secularisation of society through repression is by definition only temporarly and will crumble twice as hard when the strong man is ousted, only the development of the proletariat through freedom and education will lead towards an fundamentally secular, enlightened and socialist society..


A society that for ages had different reliigons and tribes living in peace with each other. The victory of the fuckin theocrats would only bring misery and horror.come on, since the independence until the assad's took power syria was a political and social mess, merging and then seceding from egypt, then when hafez all assad and his regime took power they admittedly forced of some "stability" (at the cost of up to 25.000 civilian deaths in hama though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre) but where also one of the main driving factors in the lebanese civil war for about 20 fucking years in which 120.000 people where killed, the assads oppurtunistic disgusting maneuvering was exemplary like during such lovely episodes where assad suddenly dropped their support for the rejectionist front and allied themselves in essence with israel in an offensive against the PLO and leading to the massacre of 2000 palestinian refugees with syrian suplied arms during the Tel al-Zaatar massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_al-Zaatar_Massacre). the assads are now only reaping what they sowed in lebanon and hama, mass anger among the mostly suni-arab proletariat.
stop letting your ideologically driven BS get in the way of the actual facts, its embarrassing

[Le Socialiste]

Al Assad is not my cup of tea, but sure as hell I support him over the muslim dark-agers.

Because of course all Muslims are fundamentalist extremists...:rolleyes:


Al Assad has the support of the most progressive parts of the Syrian society. A society that for ages had different reliigons and tribes living in peace with each other. The victory of the fuckin theocrats would only bring misery and horror.

Fucking embarrassment. What are these "progressive parts"? And the rebels aren't all Islamic fundamentalists, but you'd have to actually read the thread - and do an actual search - to know that, which you clearly haven't.

[Luís Henrique]

Ultra-left wankery. By that logic it was wrong to support the Iraqi Army when the US Army invaded, right? After all, that would be "scabbing for the ruling class of Iraq". It's real simple. When the USA and their regional allies unleash their mercenaries on a sanctioned third world country, the only people "scabbing for the ruling class" are those unwilling to oppose imperialism.

By any logic, supporting the Iraqi Army against the US invasion was foolery. And no, the problem was not that it would be "scabbing". The problem was that the Iraqi Army - and indeed the Iraqi regime - was completely unable to defeat a foreign invasion. What communists in Iraq would have needed to do would be to topple Saddam's regime, as a precondition to fighting the invasion. And what communists in the US and its allies would have needed to do was to fight and defeat the intervention at home, instead of hoping that Saddam would somehow do their job for them.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Al Assad has the support of the most progressive parts of the Syrian society.
No he doesn't. His base of support, beyond a fairly large section of the bourgeoisie, has basicly collapsed and he now has to rely on a secterian alawite gangster org. The Ba'ath party, as an organization, is in free fall. And yes, I know this from sources on the ground. His about turn on what could be previously called the progressive aspects of the Syrian state plays no small part in it. Oh and don't give me the line about the legal "CP's" they are bought off capitulators. All the real communists have had to work in illegality and under repression from the state. In fact this was the fate of the left-wing of the Ba'ath party as well when they were driven out.

[Crux]

So essentially the two legal CP's that some of the stalinists like to parade around occasionally to build up Assad's left credentials they are in fact referring to groups that are to the right of left-Ba'athists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baathism). Just saying.
As for the progressive aspects under the Syrian state that Assad has rolled back, the Syrian economy was previously almost 100% nationalized. Granted that's not socialism or anything like that but it did provide a relatively decent wellfare state. Of course, just like in eastern europe when the stalinist regimes fell, this nationalized economy can be bought at a bargain price, in exchange for a few favours, hence Assad cross-sectarian support among the bourgeoisie but not the working class and poor. Of course the civil war has heightened this progression exponentially and, like I said, the Ba'ath party, who were indeed cross-communal, is crumbling bit by bit and the only group truely loyal to Assad would be an organized Alawite gang (I did hear their actual name but I am sorry I can't remember it) who are playing on the alawite minorities not unreasonable fears of indiscriminate reprisal against them from sunni islamists, for being a relatively favored minority, so to speak. So to repeat, Assads base of support these days are the vulture capitalists who's made an eastern europe style privatizationfest of the syrian wellfare state and an actual mafia organization and secterian alawite gang. And I'm giving Delenda Carthago the benfit of the doubt here and assuming these weren't the "progressive sector" he had in mind. I mean the Assad regime still has it's fair share of friends on the Arab left and among the stalinist orgs who are quite happy to tell fairy tales. But you'd have to ask yourself what kind of CP's would gladly see other communists and leftists rot in prison cells, even split offs from their own parties, and to top that off support an essentially capitalist regime in the name of the "national interest"? Oh right, stalinists. I suppose in this case removing the spine was their survival technique considering what happened to the iraqi CP's under Hussein, who were not as lucky.

[Crux]

Oh wait, there is indeed a third legal Communist party now, created by an expelled leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadri_Jamil) who were accused of trotskyism (the horror! the horror!). Seeing these bold and radical statements of his I can see there is much hope for the legal "communist" movement in Syria:
He said he attended demonstrations at the start of the 2011 Syrian uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Syrian_uprising), but distanced himself once the protests started to call for the removal of President Bashar al-Assad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadri_Jamil#cite_note-McC-7) He called on the government to release all political detainees.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadri_Jamil#cite_note-VoR-8) He has stated that "The slogan 'the overthrow of the regime' is unpractical, unrealistic and useless",[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadri_Jamil#cite_note-9) and has advocated a "complete change in the regime ... under the leadership of the President".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadri_Jamil#cite_note-10)

Not sure where the supposed "trotskyism" in this is. Must be the "release all political detainees" part.

[DasFapital]

stop devoting all your energy to cheer leading events overseas and work to build revolution in your own countries. None of this armchair Comintern shit!