Syria: Foundation of the Dera’a section of the Revolutionary Left Current

[Le Socialiste]

A comrade sent this to me and several others. I find this development to be a rather encouraging sign. It's far from perfect, but I think it might mark a step in the right direction. What do others think? Does anybody know anything about this Revolutionary Left Current?


Foundation of the Dera’a section of the Revolutionary Left Current

This document was published on the 13 December 2012, in “Front Line”, organ of the Revolutionary Left Current, It is translated from the Arabic by Luiza Toscane. (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/)

The Dera’a branch of the Revolutionary Left Current in Syria has been founded. It is made up of left activists and revolutionary Marxists, activists in the Syrian revolutionary movement who have adopted the transitional programme of the revolutionary left in Syria. This is a current which has been active since the beginning of the revolution on Syrian territory. It has led the struggle within the revolution. The attempted confiscation of the revolution, by political and ideological currents lacking a popular character, requires those who identify with the revolutionary left to realise two essential tasks at this stage: the rallying and unification of the ranks of the left, civil and secular youth, participation in the revolution by all means, the highlighting of the democratic aspect and genuine civil character of the revolution. And in the long term, the establishment of a dialogue which is total and without boundaries around the unification of the Syrian revolutionary left in the context of united organizational work leading to the formation of a revolutionary Marxist left party, adopting a political programme aimed at building a society of social justice, the state of citizenship and law.

It is about developing a climate conducive to the development of a democratic consciousness for various currents and parties of different persuasions to practice politics and to think freely. And therefore, to achieve the objective and subjective conditions conducive to proposing programs and mechanisms of action to build a just socialist society. With this in mind, left revolutionaries must carry out several significant tasks, of which the most important are:

1 – A critique of traditional Marxist thought, the renewal of the latter and its adaptation to historical and technological development. The development of new basic principles corresponding to a societal culture, a level of social consciousness and the development of the dominant relations of production.

2 – A review of the failed experiences of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and in the countries of Latin America and the Middle East.

3 – A critique of the traditional Marxist parties, conducted in an objective manner, including the Communist parties in the Arab region.

4 – A fierce struggle to sweep away the leftovers of the counter propaganda and campaigns of disparagement of socialism and of Marxist thought conducted by the imperialist countries at the global level. The latter have used to achieve their objectives the reactionary forces in our region throughout the cold or hot wars engaged by the so-called “socialist camp” and “capitalist camp”.

The experience of the creation of a rank and file organizational structure which is the foundation of our current’s Dera’a section – an experience appropriate to be generalized to all the governorates of the Syria – is in practice the realization of an attempt to build a political party from the base to the summit, in contrast to the form that predominated during the construction of the traditional parties. This reinforces the feeling of satisfaction and serenity towards the future of this nascent party, which will by this method concretise the concept of genuine democratic centralism, and not the caricature that has led to the submission of individuals and the arbitrariness of hereditary leaderships. We call for urgent, but systematic and organised, work, at the same time to build sections in other cities of Syria, bringing together the largest possible number of left revolutionaries and their friends at the local level, in accordance with the outline of the transitional programme of the Syrian revolutionary left and immediately begin executing the essential tasks of the current stage.

Left Revolutionary Current in Syria Dera’a section Liberty-Dignity-Social Justice

http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/foundation-of-the-deraa-section-of-the-revolutionary-left-current/

[Crux]

I am ready to support leftists, in a pretty broad sense of the word, in Syria, but I fear unless they are able to build an independent force both politically and militarily they are going down the path of many of the leftists during the iranian revolution and that path, as you know ends up in prison or six feet under ground.

[Crux]

99.9% syrian/arab leftists arent 'supporting' the rebels ''revolution'' etc,only certain individual syrian leftists and some from rs in egypt.
Figuratively speaking of course. When reading news reports from Syria, unless you yourself have a direct link to people on the ground, I think it's worth remembering that in war the first victim is the truth. And this is true for all news media, be they in northern europe, in U.S or in the Middle East. That's why I try to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism and try and shy away from making too absolutist statements about the present conflict. To speak in general terms, what we've learned from history etc, about the Assad regime or about islamists is, relatively speaking, simple but to say what is going on on the ground right now is much harder. Now, I trust my sources in Kurdistan re: the recent attacks from islamists acting within the FSA against Kurds and also against Alawites. This has informed our recent assessment of the situation where we say neither the FSA nor the Assad regime can be supported. But beyond that, I am afraid I can only speak in more abstract terms. I have seen several conflicting reports. And, like I've said before, it appears the islamists have strengthened their position and are the best armed and organized, but to derive from that all of the opposition would be islamists is in my view false. And I believe it's false regardless of whether it is arab or american leftists who deal in those terms. Being in the region hardly makes one immune from the inter-imperialist conflict and the ensuing propaganda in the media. From both sides. I think we, as revolutionary leftists, must strive to make an as sober assessment as possible. that does not mean reaching for some imagined middle ground between the FSA and the regime but to try and act upon what we can reasonably assume to be true and try to stay alert to the media side of the inter-imperialist conflict.

[Crux]

the islamists are the armed opposition,none are secularists whatever bollox they may tell the western media ..politically those on the armed opposition side (not the 'anti rebel opposition')99% are salfists or at least ikhwanists.. there are no secularists worthy of mentioning,apart from some none snc exile groups-many of whom seem less supportive of the fsa
you are right about the news media,although the balance of their propaganda is hardly equal.in arabic also
Which brings me to the crucial question: Says who? I think that's a very hasty generalization to make, just as those who try to frame the conflict in other simplistic terms like "it's the syrian people versus the Assad regime".
I mean take for instance Russia Today. Their pro-Assad slant is obvious and the political reasons why a state controlled russian channel would spin in favor of Assad is also transparent. Undoubtedly similar bonds of loyality exist in the middle east, not the least in Lebanon where the conflict has to some extent spilled over.

In addition re the inter-imperialist nature of the conflict, those who are genuinely pro-Assad tend to take a positive, or at least forgiving, view of it's allies Iran, Russia and China. This is also worth keeping in mind.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Here's an interesting question - what actions has the Assad regime taken which have contributed to the strength of the Sunni fundamentalists in the opposition movement? Religious fundamentalism does not exist in a vacuum, and it seems naive and anti-materialist to blame the rise of Sunni extremism on Syria on the CIA and Sunni Arab monarchies alone. Presumably, there must have been some conditions in Syria that allowed for the non-Islamic fundamentalists in the opposition to lose power.

It does seem that in Egypt, the government of Mubarak wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to be the most powerful voice of opposition to keep Christians and Secularists quiet and supportive of the regime. Is it crazy to think that the same thing happened in Syria?

The further question would be what the best strategy for leftist struggle is. Supporting the regime just means fighting to condemn Syria to decades of dictatorship and bad government.

[ckaihatsu]

Here's an interesting question - what actions has the Assad regime taken which have contributed to the strength of the Sunni fundamentalists in the opposition movement? Religious fundamentalism does not exist in a vacuum, and it seems naive and anti-materialist to blame the rise of Sunni extremism on Syria on the CIA and Sunni Arab monarchies alone. Presumably, there must have been some conditions in Syria that allowed for the non-Islamic fundamentalists in the opposition to lose power.

It does seem that in Egypt, the government of Mubarak wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to be the most powerful voice of opposition to keep Christians and Secularists quiet and supportive of the regime. Is it crazy to think that the same thing happened in Syria?


I appreciate your framing here, but I don't think the comparison of dynamics from Egypt to Syria is apt at all -- those are distinctively different situations that Mubarak and Assad were / are in.

If we start at the overarching global context we see that the entire financial capitalist economic momentum is crashing everywhere. That fact alone would foreshadow ill effects for status quo rulerships practically *anywhere*.

Economic instability breeds both uncertainty for everyone and political instability as a result. We can slice-and-dice according to factional labels, as you're doing, and it may also happen to be empirically true, but what I'm seeing is a revealing of *insular* political dynamics, on the basis of tier / scale. (Consider that the post-Arab Spring imperialist counter-offensive has now ground to a halt in the Syria context, so there's no more world-bully for the time being.)

Why would the military establishment in Egypt prefer the MB as its favorite whipping-boy -- ? I'll argue it's simply based on *scale*, since my understanding is that the Christians and secularists there are smaller-sized, minor factions.

In Syria we might say that a version of secular rulership has been thoroughly discredited, and I'll argue that the slumping world economy is ultimately behind it. Since political factions there are based on religious / secular / cultural identities, the "available options" seem to now be fundamentalist religious ones, ably counterposing their own brand against the discredited and besieged Assad regime.

What *does* (geo-)politics look like in the absence of any reliable economic growth -- ? It becomes even *more* of a dog-and-pony show, increasingly arbitrary as compared to real-world conditions. The term I use for this is 'playground politics'.





The further question would be what the best strategy for leftist struggle is. Supporting the regime just means fighting to condemn Syria to decades of dictatorship and bad government.


Yes, absolutely.

[Sir Comradical]

I am ready to support leftists, in a pretty broad sense of the word, in Syria, but I fear unless they are able to build an independent force both politically and militarily they are going down the path of many of the leftists during the iranian revolution and that path, as you know ends up in prison or six feet under ground.

At least in Iran the revolution was originally socialist in character. Here you have a handful of leftists amid a sea of right-wingers and Islamists.

[Rafiq]

Sounds like a bunch of cliche horseshit. Everywhere I turn, from Zizek to now-turned reformist parties, I hear of abandoning "traditional Marxism". What traditional Marxism? It would appear almost every "Marxist" in the past several decades has proudly declared their break with "old Marxism", but a quick look at the historical development of Marxist theory shows that "traditional Marxism" has been suppressed and dismissed since the times of the Spanish Civil war. In fact, Althusser was exceedingly unique in his reproduction of what many could call traditional Marxism in the field of philosophy and so on (he enhanced it, he did not dismiss it). Maybe today we need less of these "special Marxists" and more of a revival of the so-called "traditional Marxism" they attack, and have claimed pervades the Marxist intelligentsia (which it obviously does not, and has not for something of a hundred years).