whats going on in syria

[Let's Get Free]

...

[Sasha]

im glad that we have this poll now to settle this once and for all [/sarcasm]

[Rafiq]

All of these options remain insufficient in providing a viable explanation for the current Syrian civil war... Jesus christ.

The current bourgeois state in Syria is defending itself against Islamists who are not complete "puppets" of the enemies of Syria, i.e. It is a two way deal, they receive weapons and aid while the enemies of the Syrian state are satisfied with it's destruction. The Bourgeois classes have been extremely incompetent in this regards, they haven't learned from Afghanistan that strategically this well end in a disaster.

[Ostrinski]

I voted for the second option because I do think it is something of a "popular" upsurge against what is certainly a repressive regime, but to say that I have my suspicions of how "democratic" the content of the leadership's ambitions are would be a great understatement. I think we would be naive if we didn't think that the western imperial powers had an interest in a regime that was more reciprocal to their interests, but how much influence they have on the ground in the practical sense is up for discussion.

I think the communist position on the matter should be one of neutrality because it is not our responsibility to take sides between bourgeois forces. Even the anti-imperialists will have to abstain from taking sides so as not to err on this very basic communist principle.

[Althusser]

Options are very well put together.

[Let's Get Free]

I think the communist position on the matter should be one of neutrality because it is not our responsibility to take sides between bourgeois forces. Even the anti-imperialists will have to abstain from taking sides so as not to err on this very basic communist principle.

I agree, even though some of the anti imps say that we need to back up the assad regime, either because it is progressive in itself, or because of its ostensible "anti imperialism"(which is fake by the way)


Options are very well put together.

thanks

[hetz]

I agree, even though some of the anti imps say that we need to back up the assad regime, either because it is progressive in itselfIt indeed is progressive in comparison to other Arab countries, especially Syria's neighbors. And it is progressive compared to the rebels who are trying to set up a different Syria.


or because of its ostensible "anti imperialism"(which is fake by the way)Correct, but Assad's regime is clearly under attack from certain imperialist powers.

[nativeabuse]

I don't know, I feel like while Assad isn't as bad of a guy as he is painted to be, and I think that Ba'athism isn't a bad ideology per say, and it is closer to the goal of Socialism than what is going to end up replacing it.

I feel like this revolution is going to be an ideological regression in the wrong direction, since the leftist/socialist leaning rebel factions are smaller and are simply going to end up removed from the equation or minimized by the Islamic Nationalist rebels. We are going to see another Egypt-like situation, where nothing really changes in terms of progress, just one oppressive group swapped out for another, although this new oppressive group is going to lean conservative as opposed to a group that has a slightly socialist secular lean to it like Assad and the Ba'ath party.

[Ostrinski]

If we support Assad's regime in Syria because it is progressive in comparison to some factions of the opposition and to other governments and political entities in the Middle East (which is hardly saying anything), that still doesn't give any distinguished communist an excuse to support Assad and his regime. If that were legitimate then we would be getting behind the liberal-progressive parties in the west because they are more "progressive" than their more conservatively inclined counterparts. It is the exact same thing.

Assad and his regime may be under attack from foreign imperialists. Such is the natural state of the capitalist world in which different factions of capital stand counterposed to each other. But that doesn't mean that we sell out our communist principles to one such faction of capital just because it may be politically weaker.

It should be simple: Do not cross the class line.

[hetz]

Wait, aren't all Syrian communist parties pro-Assad? But maybe we know better, after all it's not us who will get their heads cut off if the rebels win.

[l'Enfermé]

^^Syria is ruled by the National Progressive Front, a coalition of various "socialist" and Arab-nationalist parties(though the Ba'ath party is bigger than all the rest combined). This coalition includes both "Communist" Parties and 5 parties with "Socialist" in the name(there are a total of 10 parties in the coalition). Both the Communist Parties are full of shit though.

Their websites:

http://www.syriancp.org/
http://www.syrcomparty.org/

[kashkin]

Anti-imperialism should mean at best opposition to Western intervention, NOT support for Assad. They are two very different things.

[Tim Cornelis]

1) a popular/democratic revolution against a repressive regime

True to a large extent. The uprising began as a popular uprising in the face of oppression. As the Assad regime began to crack down on protests, sections of the population took up arms against the regime and formed the FSA. The leadership of the FSA has consistently disassociated themselves from Islamism. The FSA has also freed journalists held by Islamic fundamentalists.

2) a sectarian war in which the Sunni Arab majority is fighting to displace an Alawi ruling class.

Without a doubt this is an important motivation for many, if not most combatants and protesters.

3) a holy war of Sunni Muslims against all manifestations of Shiism, especially the Alawite variety

Experts noted the dwindling influence of al Qaida globally prior to the armed conflict and believed it would seek to increase it by joining the uprising.

True to a certain extent. It's ironic to see how many leftists and anticapitalists, such as Rafiq and Hetz (but I'm sure many more share this view) use the Islamist scare tactics that is the root cause of so much Islamophobia. Many insist it's an "al Qaida" influenced rebellion (I'm not saying the beforementioned do). Of course, it's convenient. A popular uprising against an oppressive bourgeois regime that is backed by the West is problematic. The Islamist version of the Red Scare is a good solution: just point out the involvement of the ultra-reactionaries and one can easily oppose this popular uprising. Problem is (besides that Al Qaida is a marginal organisation around the world with no more than a few hundred members), the Islamists are a minority that only recently began to exert some influence, mostly due to foreign fighters entering Syria.

It is also problematic because the Islamists of Hezbollah fights for Assad, meaning if you support Assad because of Sunni Islamist opposition you support Shiite Islamism. I for one favour none over the other.

The Sunni Islamists are united in several military groups, the most notable is the Al-Nusra Front acclaimed for its professionalism. It is allied with the FSA based on a common enemy, but the FSA leadership is critical of its fundamentalism.

4) An imperialist proxy war with western powers arming the fsa terrorists to overthrow the Assad regime

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Western countries back the FSA; Iran, Russia, and China back the current regime. Both could very well have imperialistic motivations. The FSA has alleged that Iranian paramilitaries were captured within Syrian borders. It is not a proxy war insofar it was not instigated by external forces.


Wait, aren't all Syrian communist parties pro-Assad? But maybe we know better, after all it's not us who will get their heads cut off if the rebels win.

If these self-titled communist parties are pro-Assad then maybe we need to question whether they qualify as such. In any case, backing Assad because communist parties do rather than think for yourself is an infantile manner of evading the issue. That being said, there are four parties calling itself communist, two of which are pro-Assad, two of which are anti-Assad.

Syrian Communist Party (Unified) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Communist_Party_(Unified)) and Syrian Communist Party (Bakdash) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Communist_Party_(Bakdash)) support the regime. The Communist Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Labour_Party_(Syria)) and the Arab Revolutionary Workers Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolutionary_Workers_Party) support the opposition. Moreover, the PKK's Syrian political wing, the Democratic Union Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)), supports the Syrian opposition as well. So if we are going to blindly follow what far-leftist parties do, we need to support the opposition.

[Let's Get Free]

1) a popular/democratic revolution against a repressive regime

True to a large extent. The uprising began as a popular uprising in the face of oppression. As the Assad regime began to crack down on protests, sections of the population took up arms against the regime and formed the FSA. The leadership of the FSA has consistently disassociated themselves from Islamism. The FSA has also freed journalists held by Islamic fundamentalists.

2) a sectarian war in which the Sunni Arab majority is fighting to displace an Alawi ruling class.

Without a doubt this is an important motivation for many, if not most combatants and protesters.

3) a holy war of Sunni Muslims against all manifestations of Shiism, especially the Alawite variety

Experts noted the dwindling influence of al Qaida globally prior to the armed conflict and believed it would seek to increase it by joining the uprising.

True to a certain extent. It's ironic to see how many leftists and anticapitalists, such as Rafiq and Hetz (but I'm sure many more share this view) use the Islamist scare tactics that is the root cause of so much Islamophobia. Many insist it's an "al Qaida" influenced rebellion (I'm not saying the beforementioned do). Of course, it's convenient. A popular uprising against an oppressive bourgeois regime that is backed by the West is problematic. The Islamist version of the Red Scare is a good solution: just point out the involvement of the ultra-reactionaries and one can easily oppose this popular uprising. Problem is (besides that Al Qaida is a marginal organisation around the world with no more than a couple of hundreds of members), the Islamists are a minority that only recently began to exert some influence, mostly due to foreign fighters entering Syria.

It is also problematic because the Islamists of Hezbollah fights for Assad, meaning if you support Assad because of Sunni Islamist opposition you support Shiite Islamism. I for one favour none over the other.

The Sunni Islamists are united in several military groups, the most notable is the Al-Nusra Front acclaimed for its professionalism. It is allied with the FSA based on a common enemy, but the FSA leadership is critical of its fundamentalism.

4) An imperialist proxy war with western powers arming the fsa terrorists to overthrow the Assad regime

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Western countries back the FSA; Iran, Russia, and China back the current regime. Both could very well have imperialistic motivations. The FSA has alleged that Iranian paramilitaries were captured within Syrian borders. It is not a proxy war insofar it was not instigated by external forces.



If these self-titled communist parties are pro-Assad then maybe we need to question whether they qualify as such. In any case, backing Assad because communist parties do rather than think for yourself is an infantile manner of evading the issue. That being said, there are four parties calling itself communist, two of which are pro-Assad, to of which are anti-Assad.

Syrian Communist Party (Unified) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Communist_Party_(Unified)) and Syrian Communist Party (Bakdash) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Communist_Party_(Bakdash)) support the regime. The Communist Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Labour_Party_(Syria)) and the Arab Revolutionary Workers Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolutionary_Workers_Party). Moreover, the PKK's Syrian political wing, the Democratic Union Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)), supports the Syrian opposition as well. So if we are going to blindly follow what far-leftist parties do, we need to support the opposition.

I agree with all of this.

[Ostrinski]

Wait, aren't all Syrian communist parties pro-Assad? But maybe we know better, after all it's not us who will get their heads cut off if the rebels win.You think any party with Communist in its name is worth supporting? The Communist Party of the United States supports Obama, I suppose you want us to jump behind that guy as well. After all, if we support one bourgeois government that happens to be supported by a party with Communist in its name then we might as well support them all! And there are plenty of them, mind you.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It's just a proxy war between American/European imperialism and Russian/Chinese/Iranian imperialism. I don't see why we can't go back to good old Lenin and call "revolutionary defeatism"

I guess some people like cheering for the little guy and take that as the basis for their politics. The Russian/Iranian/Chinese cliche has been in decline for a while and I don't think it will last a few more decades. Sure, part of me will pity them when they are finally destroyed by American imperialism, but that probably comes from the same part of me that has a soft spot for Kim Il Sung for being more competent than his son. IE. the part of me that is completely stupid and should be ignored at all costs.

[Jack]

Moreover, the PKK's Syrian political wing, the Democratic Union Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)), supports the Syrian opposition as well. So if we are going to blindly follow what far-leftist parties do, we need to support the opposition.

I'm going to need a citation on this. The PKK has called out the rebels numerous times for deliberately attacking Kurdish civilians, and murdering Kurdish protestors and sympathizers of the Assad government. They have also come out promising to turn Kurdistan into a war zone fighting the Turkish army if Turkey invades Syria.

The Syrian regime has, for the last 40 years, been a host to revolutionary Marxist-Leninist cadres expelled from their own countries. I see no reason why the ultraleftist types here would seek to disrupt that in favor of a Western backed Islamist filled rebellion with a reputation for brutal acts against Syria's religious minorities.

[Let's Get Free]

I see no reason why the ultraleftist types here would seek to disrupt that in favor of a Western backed Islamist filled rebellion with a reputation for brutal acts against Syria's religious minorities.

Anyone who wants to talk about brutal acts has to look at who concretely is mainly responsible for the murder in the current situation, and the obvious answer is Assad and the Syrian ruling class: it is they who at the moment are turning parts of Syria into Gaza. Only secondarily does imperialism impose itself, by attempting to nudge the outcome in one direction or another through infiltration and co-optation.

[Red Commissar]

I'm going to need a citation on this. The PKK has called out the rebels numerous times for deliberately attacking Kurdish civilians, and murdering Kurdish protestors and sympathizers of the Assad government. They have also come out promising to turn Kurdistan into a war zone fighting the Turkish army if Turkey invades Syria.

The situation of the PYD is complicated. I think it highlights an important aspect of the conflict in that a lot of allegiances are fluid and they will ultimately act in their own interest rather than working under another group's agenda. We should also consider that a lot of times what people choose to do in the conflict isn't necessarily related to their ideology but immediate goals for power.

The areas where the PYD have taken over have seen conflicts with both the government and FSA. It is inaccurate to say that the PYD is part of the FSA or what is considered to be the opposition now- that much is right- however it is simplifying it to say that the PYD is merely acting on orders from Damascus. There's a convergence since the PYD dislikes the FSA and the SNC as they see them as being detached from the Kurdish issue and have no love for them, and won't shelter them from the military or allow them to take control of their cities. They have also taken to intimidating or even killing Kurds who overtly support the SNC in any form, and this accusation has been launched by its rivals in the KNC a number of times. Though at the same time it is an agreement between the KNC and PYD that created the armed Kurdish militias that operate in their regions.

And yes, there is the Turkish military factor here, which for obvious reasons the PKK would stand opposed to and by extension the groups who have been aided by them.

But at the same time there have been instances where PYD fighters were killed by the police in towns they declared to be under their control, and being hit in airstrikes by the government. In the cities they took over, they have either kicked out state authorities or confined them inside police barracks. Even though Syria tolerates their presence, the PKK probably hasn't forgotten what happened in the 1990s when they disbanded their camps and kicked a lot of them out to avoid escalating tensions with Turkey to a full scale war, which ended with their leader getting arrested and severely hurting their movement.

Of course the issue here is that the PYD, by virtue of its PKK ties, is unlikely to get any love from Europe, so it occupies an awkward position on its truces and who it is choosing to fight. It's easier to say that technically the PYD isn't really on either side here, and has not advanced beyond ensuring that Kurdish villages do not get consumed by violence. Kurds aren't exactly the most well treated minority in Syria- even though being the most numerous the rights and protection it receives is far less than Christian minorities. Of course Syria had no problem supporting the PKK, and even the KDP and PUK in Iraq where it advanced their interests in the region- but that's the story of Kurdish groups. They often received support from countries that were not much better in the treatment of their own Kurdish populations, but had needed to get support where ever they could considering their landlocked region.

As to the PKK's promise of fighting against Turkey, that is not surprising. It is worth noting too that even the Kurds in northern Iraq- who have largely been seen as pro-western and working with Turkey, also threatened the Turkish military that they would fight them back in 2008 if they brought fighting too deep into their territory (http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2008/2/independentstate2023.htm).

At the end of the day these Kurdish groups largely see that both of these sides represent Arab-centric unitary governments that would not offer much to the Kurds. The SNC promises federalism and some reforms, but the Kurdish groups know this is worthless. The PYD has taken note from the Kurds in other countries that the only way their demands will be taken seriously is if they show they have support in their regions and armed strength.

[ind_com]

It's just a proxy war between American/European imperialism and Russian/Chinese/Iranian imperialism. I don't see why we can't go back to good old Lenin and call "revolutionary defeatism"

I guess some people like cheering for the little guy and take that as the basis for their politics. The Russian/Iranian/Chinese cliche has been in decline for a while and I don't think it will last a few more decades. Sure, part of me will pity them when they are finally destroyed by American imperialism, but that probably comes from the same part of me that has a soft spot for Kim Il Sung for being more competent than his son. IE. the part of me that is completely stupid and should be ignored at all costs.

Revolutionary defeatism is applicable only when the revolutionary camp is strong enough to take advantage of the weakness of the national regime to declare and win a war against it, or when the national regime is engaging in an act of expansionism or imperialism in the region where the war is taking place. If we call for revolutionary defeatism when both these conditions are absent, then it will result in worse conditions for the working classes of the country concerned.

[KdB]

The Syrian regime has, for the last 40 years, been a host to revolutionary Marxist-Leninist cadres expelled from their own countries. I see no reason why the ultraleftist types here would seek to disrupt that in favor of a Western backed Islamist filled rebellion with a reputation for brutal acts against Syria's religious minorities.
This.

The situation is oddly similar to that in Libya; Gaddafi had a long history of funding unions, communist organizations, etc. all over the world.

However, for those saying that Syria's backed by Iran, Russia, and China...no. Al-Assad is being allowed to play with some of their toys (Russia sent Syria a bunch of fighter jets a while back), but other than that, Syria will fall just like Libya did. I recall that during the early days of the Libyan struggle, Russia and China voiced opposition to NATO intervention, particularly Russia. In the end, they didn't do anything. While Russia and Iran have a stronger stake in Syria's well-being than Libya's, I don't think they'll intervene in a meaningful way.

[Let's Get Free]

where you read that?so 'alqaida-fsa' are ok
.

Here's what the Syrian government's been doing to residential areas.
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/248425_10152510328205727_407352021_n.jpg

[l'Enfermé]

Here's what the Syrian government's been doing to residential areas.
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/248425_10152510328205727_407352021_n.jpg
That would be relevant if freepalestine was pro-Assad, no? Being from the Arab world, I'd assume he's been "anti-Assad" since before the Arab Spring started and most people here even learned who Assad is.

[Rafiq]

Let's be clear about something: Assad is not a 'bourgeois-leftist'. He's a reactionary. The 'Left wing' section of the Ba'ath were killed by his father. Syrian regime maintains a strong relationship to the Iranian theocracy and to Islamists in Lebanon and Palestine. A state that welcomed David Duke as an honored guest and features qnd distributes it's very own, special publication of the protocols adjusted to modern times, so not only is the Bolshevik revolution a jewish plot, as was 9/11. But you know things are really fucked up when the opposition is even more reactionary in their own, very special way.

[Geiseric]

Not to mention the ba'ath parties role in lebanon, support for assad is out of the question.

[Let's Get Free]

Let's be clear about something: Assad is not a 'bourgeois-leftist'. He's a reactionary. The 'Left wing' section of the Ba'ath were killed by his father. Syrian regime maintains a strong relationship to the Iranian theocracy and to Islamists in Lebanon and Palestine. A state that welcomed David Duke as an honored guest and features qnd distributes it's very own, special publication of the protocols adjusted to modern times, so not only is the Bolshevik revolution a jewish plot, as was 9/11. But you know things are really fucked up when the opposition is even more reactionary in their own, very special way.

The Assad regime is most definitely a viciously reactionary one. and while there are certainly reactionary elements within the opposition, it is not a uniform or homogeneous group, so they cannot be described with such general sweeping terms as 'reactionary.' the fsa actually has credibility within Syria because it is the only-repeat only-group that has come to the aid of Syrians being slaughtered by the regime.

[Jack]

I'm sorry but am I supposed to cry that a building has been destroyed during a civil war and support the rebels because of your emotional pandering with photographs? Do I need to bring up rebel atrocities once more?

The Syrian military has gone out of its way to shelter and protect civilians, you can't protect all innocent casualties, but they have shown a much greater desire to do so than the rebels.

Brody: The Ba'ath Party is part of the March 8th Alliance in Lebanon, which is much more progressive than the rival alliance which includes parties like the Phalange and Lebanese Forces, complicit in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

[Geiseric]

Regardless they crushed the infitada. They started this conflict by shooting up civilian protesters, like the cartels in mexico do to people not wanting to play their game. It was a series of tortures, assassinations, and political repression going on for a long time. I don't care if you want to feel important by supporting "marxist leninist" parties who opportunisticaly support Assad, but don't pretend that Assad is even on the level of Castro in terms of progressive bourgeois. If it was like the bay of pigs were there was a semi genuine revolutionary government, I would agree in defending the government from intervention. However Syria is completely different and Assad is full on bourgeois, as bourgeois as Saddam Hussein or Mubarak. We need to have a stance for no intervention in Syria, or anywhere in the middle east by capitalist powers. Or the world for that matter, it is the only correct one. Anti intervention does not mean supporting these dictators, it means allowing them to be overthrown by a non capitalist backed opposition, which may of happened if Assad's pigs didn't go postal on those arab spring protesters.

[Jack]

You can hope for all these things, that's wonderful, but the fact is Syria is split between the indigenous Ba'athist government, and Western puppets whose ranks are filled with Islamists. There is no third option here, you can't simply say "the people" should rise up against both factions, it that simply doesn't exist.

[Let's Get Free]

You can hope for all these things, that's wonderful, but the fact is Syria is split between the indigenous Ba'athist government, and Western puppets whose ranks are filled with Islamists. There is no third option here, you can't simply say "the people" should rise up against both factions, it that simply doesn't exist.

I like to phrase things slightly differently. We have on one side, a repressive and increasingly neo liberal capitalist bloc, and on the other side, the popular masses based in the working class. The main popular forces are not puppets, nor are they under the domination of puppets. The armed contingent is simply to diverse, to localized, and too disarticulated to be a proxy army for anything, or a force of reaction, as some claim.

[Geiseric]

No the FSA is definately under the thumb of imperalists, this is old news, but assad and the "official" bourgeois government just wants to maintain themselves.both are forces of reaction, one borne out of the arab spring.

[Rafiq]

I'm sorry but am I supposed to cry that a building has been destroyed during a civil war and support the rebels because of your emotional pandering with photographs? Do I need to bring up rebel atrocities once more?

The Syrian military has gone out of its way to shelter and protect civilians, you can't protect all innocent casualties, but they have shown a much greater desire to do so than the rebels.

Brody: The Ba'ath Party is part of the March 8th Alliance in Lebanon, which is much more progressive than the rival alliance which includes parties like the Phalange and Lebanese Forces, complicit in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

Even if we suppose that is true, the Lebanese Ba'ath is not the Syrian Ba'ath.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[kashkin]

You can hope for all these things, that's wonderful, but the fact is Syria is split between the indigenous Ba'athist government, and Western puppets whose ranks are filled with Islamists. There is no third option here, you can't simply say "the people" should rise up against both factions, it that simply doesn't exist.

And Assad doesn't have support from Hezbollah and Iran.


No the FSA is definately under the thumb of imperalists, this is old news, but assad and the "official" bourgeois government just wants to maintain themselves.both are forces of reaction, one borne out of the arab spring.

I would disagree to some extent. The FSA is not a homogenous organisation, many parts would have the backing or be completely under the control of Western powers and/or Islamists, but other parts are quite separate.

[Geiseric]

Fair enough however the real socialists need to form a seperate front if they are actually in there, the popular front they're in is pretty bad.

[Jack]

And Assad doesn't have support from Hezbollah and Iran.

So having allies is now equivalent to imperialism?


Even if we suppose that is true, the Lebanese Ba'ath is not the Syrian Ba'ath.

He mentioned the Ba'ath Party in Lebanon, that's why I brought it up. They are basically the same organization though, you won't find a Ba'ath Party more gung ho about Syria than the Lebanese one.


I like to phrase things slightly differently. We have on one side, a repressive and increasingly neo liberal capitalist bloc, and on the other side, the popular masses based in the working class. The main popular forces are not puppets, nor are they under the domination of puppets. The armed contingent is simply to diverse, to localized, and too disarticulated to be a proxy army for anything, or a force of reaction, as some claim.Well that's some clever phrasing and almost makes it sound supportable, good for you.



Fair enough however the real socialists need to form a seperate front if they are actually in there, the popular front they're in is pretty bad.

The supposed socialists in the FSA are completely marginal, they're barely existent is the point. Their membership in the FSA/SNC is basically paper support, these are not mass movements, they're small cliques. The fact that this insurgency only continues because the West is funneling arms to them marginalizes any leftist faction even further.