We Stand Behind the Syrian People's Revolution - No to Foreign Intervention

[Le Socialiste]

A statement from the Revolutionary Socialists (Egypt), Union of Communists (Iraq), Al-Mounadil-a (Morocco), Socialist Forum (Lebanon), and the Revolutionary Left Current (Syria):


We Stand Behind the Syrian People's Revolution - No to Foreign Intervention

Statement by: Revolutionary Socialists (Egypt) - Revolutionary Left Current (Syria) - Union of Communists (Iraq) - Al-Mounadil-a (Morocco) - Socialist Forum (Lebanon)

Published on Saturday 31 August 2013
--

Over 150 thousand were killed, hundreds of thousands injured and disabled, millions of people displaced inside and outside Syria. Cities, villages, and neighborhoods were destroyed fully or partially, using all sorts of weapons, including warplanes, scud missiles, bombs, and tanks, all paid for by the sweat and blood of the Syrian people. This was under the pretext of defending the homeland and achieving military balance with Israel (whose occupation of Syrian land is, in fact, being protected by the Syrian regime, which failed to reply to any of its continuing aggressions).

Yet, despite the enormous losses mentioned above, befalling all Syrians, and the calamity inflicted on them, no international organization or major country – or a lesser one – felt the need to provide practical solidarity or support the Syrians in their struggle for their most basic rights, human dignity, and social justice.

The only exception was some Gulf countries, more specifically Qatar and Saudi Arabia. However, their aim was to control the nature of the conflict and steer it in a sectarian direction, distorting the Syrian revolution and aiming to abort it, as a reflection of their deepest fear that the revolutionary flame will reach their shores. So they backed obscurantist takfiri groups, coming, for the most part, from the four corners of the world, to impose a grotesque vision for rule based on Islamic sharia. These groups were engaged, time and time again, in terrifying massacres against Syrian citizens who opposed their repressive measures and aggressions inside areas under their control or under attack, such as the recent example of villages in the Latakia countryside.

A large block of hostile forces, from around the world, is conspiring against the Syrian people's revolution, which erupted in tandem with the uprisings spreading through a large section of the Arab region and the Maghreb for the past three years. The people's uprisings aimed to put an end to a history of brutality, injustice, and exploitation and attain the rights to freedom, dignity, and social justice.

However, this did not only provoke local brutal dictatorships, but also most of the imperialist forces seeking to perpetuate the theft of the wealth of our people, in addition to the various reactionary classes and forces throughout those areas and in surrounding countries.

As for Syria, the alliance fighting against the people's revolution comprises a host of reactionary sectarian forces, spearheaded by Iran and confessional militias in Iraq, and, to much regret, Hezbollah's strike force, which is drowning in the quagmire of defending a profoundly corrupt and criminal dictatorial regime.

This unfortunate situation has also struck a major section of the traditional Arab left with Stalinist roots, whether in Syria itself or in Lebanon, Egypt, and the rest of the Arab region – and worldwide – which is clearly biased towards the wretched alliance surrounding the Assad regime. The justification is that some see it as a "resilient" or even a "resistance" regime, despite its long history – throughout its existence in power – of protecting the Zionist occupation of the Golan Heights, its constant bloody repression of various groups resisting Israel, be it Palestinian or Lebanese (or Syrian), and remaining idle and subservient, since the October 1973 war, concerning Israel's aggressions on Syrian territories. This bias will have serious ramifications on ordinary Syrians' position regarding the left in general.

The United Nations and the Security Council, in particular, was unable to condemn the crimes of a regime, which the Syrian people rejected continuously and peacefully for more than seven months, while the bullets of the snipers and shabbiha took demonstrators one by one and day after day and while the most influential activists were being detained and subjected to the worst kinds of torture and elimination in the prisons and detention centers. All the while, the world remained completely silent and in a state of total negativity.

The situation persisted with small difference after the people in revolution decided to take up arms and the emergence of what became known as the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – whose command and soldiers came, to a large extent, from the regular army. This led to the horrific escalation of crimes by the regime.

Russian imperialism, the most important ally of the Baathist regime in Damascus, which provides it with all sorts of support, remains on the lookout to block any attempt to condemn those crimes in the Security Council. The United States, on the other hand, does not find a real problem in the continuation of the status quo, with all the apparent repercussions and destruction of the country. This is despite the threats and intimidation utilized by the US president, every time someone in the opposition raises the question of the use of chemical weapons by the regime, up until the latest escalation, when it was considered crossing a "red line."

It is clear that Obama, who gives the impression that he will go ahead with his threats, would have felt great embarrassment if he did not do so, since it will not only impact negatively on the president, but also on the image of the mighty and arrogant state that he leads in the eyes of subservient Arab countries and the entire world.

The imminent strike against the Syrian armed forces is led by the US in essence. However, it occurs with the understanding and cooperation of allied imperialist countries, even without rationalizing it through the usual farce, known as international legitimacy (namely the decisions of the UN, which was and remains representative of the interests of major powers, whether in conflict or in alliance, depending on the circumstances, differences, and balances among them). In other words, the strike will not wait for the Security Council due to the anticipated Russian-Chinese veto.

Unfortunately, many in the Syrian opposition are gambling on this strike and the US position in general. They believe this would create an opportunity for them to seize power, skipping over the movement and of the masses and their independent decision. It should not be a surprise, then, that the representatives of this opposition and the FSA had no reservations on providing information to the US about proposed targets for the strike.

In all cases, we agree on the following:

The western imperialist alliance will strike several positions and vital parts of the military and civilian infrastructure in Syria (with several casualties, as usual). However, as it was keen to announce, the strikes will not be meant to topple the regime. They are merely intended to punish, in Obama's words, the current Syrian leadership and save face for the US administration, after all the threats concerning the use of chemical weapons.

The US president's intentions to punish the Syrian leadership does not stem, in any way or form, from Washington's solidarity with the suffering of children who fell in the Ghouta massacres, but from its commitment to what Obama calls the vital interests of the US and its homeland security, in addition to Israel's interests and security.

The Syrian army and its regional allies, led by the Iranian regime, will not have enough courage, most probably, to fulfil what seemed to be threats by their senior officials that any western attack on Syria will ignite the entire region. But this option remains on the table, as a final option with catastrophic results.
The imminent western imperialist assault does not intend to support the Syrian revolution in any way. It will aim to push Damascus into the bargaining table and allow Bashar al-Assad to retreat from the foreground, but keeping the regime in place, while greatly improving conditions to strengthen the position of US imperialism in the future Syria against Russian imperialism.

The more those participating in the continuing popular mobilization – who are more aware, principled, and dedicated to the future of Syria and its people – realize these facts, their consequences, results, and act accordingly, the more this will contribute to aiding the Syrian people to successfully pick a true revolutionary leadership. In the process of a committed struggle based on the current and future interests of their people, this would produce a radical program consistent with those interests, which could be promoted and put into practice on the road to victory.

No to all forms of imperialist intervention, whether by the US or Russia.

No to all forms of reactionary sectarian interventions, whether by Iran or the Gulf countries.

No to the intervention of Hezbollah, which warrants the maximum of condemnation.

Down with all illusions about the imminent US military strike.

Break open the arms depots for the Syrian people to struggle for freedom, dignity, and social justice.

Victory to a free democratic Syria and down with the Assad dictatorship and all dictatorships forever.

Long live the Syrian people's revolution.

--
Revolutionary Socialists (Egypt) - Revolutionary Left Current (Syria) - Union of Communists (Iraq) - Al-Mounadil-a (Morocco) - Socialist Forum (Lebanon)

http://www.al-manshour.org/en/statement-by-rev-socialists-marxists-on-us-attack-on-syria

[Brotto Rühle]

What a bunch of tools.

[nom de guerrevara]

What a bunch of tools.

Nice political analysis there, comrade. So just because principled sections of the left don't give into the false dichotomy of "Assad or Washington", that makes them tools?

[Rafiq]

What a bunch of tools.


Do you have a better position? At least they didn't go full ass kissing like the SCP did.

[adipocere]

Yeah, yeah - pick up your check at Langley.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Egypt's Revolutionary Socialists have been tried and convicted of being tools a while ago, I'm not sure about the other groups.

The statement itself isn't that bad, though.

[nom de guerrevara]

Egypt's Revolutionary Socialists have been tried and convicted of being tools a while ago

What's your basis for that assessment? The Revolutionary Socialists have been one of the few groups on the Egyptian left to have a principled position on the June 30 revolution and the military's seizure of power in its aftermath, neither lining up with the military's liquidation of the Muslim brotherhood, or defending the rule of Morsi.

[Devrim]

The statement itself isn't that bad, though.

In my opinion it is pretty terrible. For a start it portrays the struggle in as a 'revolution'. I don't think that there is a revolution in Syria. I think there is a brutal civil war, in which the various local, and international powers are using local forces as proxies in a wider regional power struggle. I don't believe that either side in this war defends the interests of the working class. The authors of this statement don't feel that. They believe that the working class has interests in supporting this 'revolution'. Also they support the idea of foreign intervention talking about how Saudi, and Qatar have supported the struggle whilst raising some minor criticisms.


Nice political analysis there, comrade. So just because principled sections of the left don't give into the false dichotomy of "Assad or Washington", that makes them tools?

Although they are not backing 'Washington', they are backing the same side as them. This statement doesn't escape from that dichotomy.


Egypt's Revolutionary Socialists have been tried and convicted of being tools a while ago, I'm not sure about the other groups.

I have never heard of any of the other groups, but I presume they are nascent IST groups. The IST does seem to have taken its side in the current struggles in the Middle East whether it has been supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in elections in Egypt, or supporting the Islamicist AKP in referendums in Turkey, something that Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish Prime Minister, publicly thanked his 'brothers in the socialist workers party' for. This statement is consistent with this line.

Devrim

[CyM]

They now have transitioned to opposing the brotherhood, without any explanation for the change. They also oppose the army, which is good, but not without going so far as calling the revolution ehich overthrew Morsi a coup, which is bad.

[nom de guerrevara]

Although they are not backing 'Washington', they are backing the same side as them. This statement doesn't escape from that dichotomy.

The United States are not on the same side as the revolutionaries. To claim this is absurd

The US want to see Assad taken out, but the rest of his regime kept in place. Not only to continue the neo-liberal "reforms" Assad had been carrying out up until the beginning of the revolution, but to also keep the de-facto peace between Syria and Israel.

The revolutionaries, for the most part, want the entire Assad regime overthrown and a democratic Syria built from its ashes.

The US are opposed to this, because it would mean another victory in the Arab Spring, and a threat to the US-backed dictatorships in the region.

[Sir Comradical]

...sorry posted twice.

[Sir Comradical]

If I were in Syria, I would side with the state for entirely tactical reasons. The way the battlelines are drawn, I'd argue that advances for the Left are more attainable by supporting the reform process that the NCC are backing. Whereas a victory for the rebels, by overwhelmingly Islamist forces, would be a major major step back.

In Syria political parties based on religion are banned which means the most cashed up political parties in the region, i.e. the Ikhwan, don't have a foothold in Syria. This actually provides a more even playing field for the Left because it excludes one of the Left's major enemies, rightist Islamists.

As such I think this group are shooting themselves in the foot, just like the Maoists in Afghanistan who ended up being murdered by the muj.

[Devrim]

The United States are not on the same side as the revolutionaries. To claim this is absurd

Indeed it is so absurd that someone would claim that the US is on the same side as the rebels when the US is providing aid, including arms, to them, and America's allies in the region Turkey, a NATO member, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are arming them to the teeth. One would wonder where anybody could get the absolutely ridiculous idea that the US is on the same side as the people it is giving money and weapons to. It is obviously some clever trick on their behalf where they channel support to the people they are actually against while all along supporting the Syrian state. How could I have been so foolish?


The US want to see Assad taken out, but the rest of his regime kept in place. Not only to continue the neo-liberal "reforms" Assad had been carrying out up until the beginning of the revolution, but to also keep the de-facto peace between Syria and Israel.

It is good to know that the US is revealing its strategic reasoning to Australian Trotskyists. I will be sure to ask you next time I want to know what the US is up to.

Personally, my feeling is that they don't have anywhere near a coherent programme just as they haven't through out the entire period of recent wars in the Middle East. I would imagine that they would be keen to have a Syrian state, which would break with Iran, and stop supporting, and letting the Iranians supply, Hezbollah in Lebanon. I would think that that would take more than removing Assad and keeping the rest of the state in place.


The revolutionaries, for the most part, want the entire Assad regime overthrown and a democratic Syria built from its ashes.

Oh, I see they are keeping you informed as well. The impression that I got was that it was a bloody sectarian civil war.


The US are opposed to this, because it would mean another victory in the Arab Spring, and a threat to the US-backed dictatorships in the region.

The Arab spring is well over, Assad is not US backed, and the US backed states look reasonably stable at the moment.

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

They now have transitioned to opposing the brotherhood, without any explanation for the change. They also oppose the army, which is good, but not without going so far as calling the revolution ehich overthrew Morsi a coup, which is bad.Because they only supported the Brotherhood in the context of the run-off election between the military representative and Morsi. From afar, I don't think that was the right call, but the only "pro-Brotherhood" statement I read by them was in that context. In the same piece they also said that the Brotherhood couldn't be counted on and wants to equivocate by showing the military it could be the civilian face - balancing the movement with the regime. So I think pretty clearly they saw it as a specific tactical decision based on their view that an electoral victory by the Brotherhood would not be as demoralizing to the broader movement as a de-facto military electoral victory.

I agree with them on the coup issue though. It was the popular movement and failures of the Morsi government to actually devliver anything to that movement that initiated the protests which then resulted with the military coup (the military having their own reasons for wanting to take advantage of the opening - in part being alienated by Morsi to a small degree, but I think also in that he was unable to stabilize the unrest). I see the situation in Egypt as an ongoing crisis but in which the working class doesn't have its own means of asserting itself as an independat alternative force - yet. Because of that, any uprising is most likely going to result in one faction or another of ruling or middle class forces contending for power - military rulers, liberal rulers, etc.

[Devrim]

Because they only supported the Brotherhood in the context of the run-off election between the military representative and Morsi.

Oh, that's all right then.

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

Oh, that's all right then.

DevrimWell like I said, I think it was the wrong call to support either side in the run-off, but also totally different from the way people have been characterizing their position in various threads as "supporting the brotherhood (in general, not as a tactic in one instance) and then suddenly switching".

[Devrim]

Well like I said, I think it was the wrong call to support either side in the run-off, but also totally different from the way people have been characterizing their position in various threads as "supporting the brotherhood (in general, not as a tactic in one instance) and then suddenly switching".

It is not just a wrong call. Political decisions are not mere aberrations that come out of nowhere. It is deeply linked to their political perspectives. Also as much as you try to downplay it, they did support the Ikwan (whether tactically or not, it is irrelevant), and then suddenly switch.

They are the same political perspectives that cause them to support this so-called revolution in Syria now, and led them to support Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey.

Nor are these sort of politics of backing the governing parties in Middle Eastern states new for the International Socialist Tendency, indeed we can go back as far as the Iran-Iraq war, and see the UK SWP supporting Khomeini and telling Iranian workers that it would be wrong to strike, or disrupt the military machine.

When an organisation or tendeency consistantly makes 'the wrong call', you have to ask deeper questions about its politics.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

Devrim, and I don't mean this in an argumentative manner, but what would be a suitable position for Communists to take with regard to the escalating situation in Syria? On one hand we can't simply ignore it and on the other victory for either side would be, even tactically unfavorable for the left. There isn't a class conscious force in Syria and there isn't even a significant organization which could bring about class consciousness. A victory for the Syrian state means an imperialist victory for countries like Iran and Russia, as well as more than likely non secular concessions on behalf of the Syrian government (a la the late years of Saddam), a solidification of the power of the bourgeoisie (verse a very unstable situation) perhaps a strengthening of nationalism as well, and on the other hand, a victory for the rebels means the same for the U.S. and it's allies in the middle east, on top of that, another secular bourgeois state fallen to the hand of Islamism (and therefore the bolstering of ideological and political strength for Islamists across the middle east).

Secondly, and this goes to Sir Comradical, I don't think Assad's victory would necessarily be better for the left, in the grand scheme of things. One thing that's important to realize is that since the fall of the Soviet Union (maybe even since Hafiz Al Assad took power), the Syrian government is not a "Left-bonapartist" state or a progressive-bourgeois state, it is, although secular, incredibly reactionary (one only needs to look at how they hosted the likes of David Duke) and festering with anti-semitism. But a victory for Islamists wouldn't necessarily be better. I honestly can't even form a solid position with regard to the situation in Syria besides opposing all sides, and although this position abstractly works, it seems too feeble.

[Devrim]

I honestly can't even form a solid position with regard to the situation in Syria besides opposing all sides, and although this position abstractly works, it seems too feeble.

If it seems feeble that is because it is, and the reason it is feeble is because the working class has no power to act upon it. It is no more feeble than the positions of those who call for support for the Syrian state, or those whose voices are drowned out by the mainstream media in calling for Western imperialist intervention.


Devrim, and I don't mean this in an argumentative manner, but what would be a suitable position for Communists to take with regard to the escalating situation in Syria?

I think the position against both sides is the correct one. I don't think that the escalation changes it in any way.


On one hand we can't simply ignore it and on the other victory for either side would be, even tactically unfavorable for the left. There isn't a class conscious force in Syria and there isn't even a significant organization which could bring about class consciousness.

It is not the possibility of a bad result to the war, which is 'unfavourable' to the working class. It is the war itself which is a disaster for the working class. Workers committing sectarian workers against their class brothers and sisters on behalf of different imperialist factions regardless of which one finally comes out on top is the tragedy.

In Syria today there is little possibility of the working class acting in its own interests. The question is not just confined to Syria though. There is a strong possibility that Lebanon can be pulled into the war, which would be a further disaster inflicted on the working class.

Devrim

[ed miliband]

In my opinion it is pretty terrible. For a start it portrays the struggle in as a 'revolution'. I don't think that there is a revolution in Syria. I think there is a brutal civil war, in which the various local, and international powers are using local forces as proxies in a wider regional power struggle. I don't believe that either side in this war defends the interests of the working class. The authors of this statement don't feel that. They believe that the working class has interests in supporting this 'revolution'. Also they support the idea of foreign intervention talking about how Saudi, and Qatar have supported the struggle whilst raising some minor criticisms.


i agree with everything you have said in this thread, however i would add that the authors of this statement - and indeed, all similar statements i have seen from similar organisations - don't argue from the perspective of the working class. the syrian working class may or may not exist, for all they care. for them, it's "the [syrian] people" against assad's regime. class doesn't come into the picture, they aren't interested.

[Jimmie Higgins]

the syrian working class may or may not exist, for all they care. for them, it's "the [syrian] people" against assad's regime. class doesn't come into the picture, they aren't interested.

I wanted to reply to Devrim, but this post made me do a spit-take. What an outrageously callous statement to make from a figurative armchair! I don't know enough about the other groups to comment and I know only a little of the RS, but as far as the RS, people who don't care about the working class also probably wouldn't bother trying to organize workers under conditions of illegality or help organize a worker's party also under conditions of illegality. Your position must be feeble indeed if this is how you criticize politics you disagree with.

Here's an article by the editor of the US Socialist Worker criticizing the run-off election position of the RS. I don't expect you to agree, but just take a look to see how it is quite possible to hold a different position while also explaining the opposing argument on their own terms without having to distort their reasoning or call their dedication to class liberation (even if you don't think their politics or strategy can actually achieve this) into question:

Egypt's election dead end (http://socialistworker.org/2012/05/31/egypts-election-dead-end)

Secondly, to the actual political point made in your post. Well the character of these uprisings have been "popular" and "democratic" where workers as induviduals have been involved and in some cases working class forces to varrying degrees (significantly in Egypt). But how is the democratic struggle not also connected to class struggle even if workers have yet to organize and articulate an independant set of demands? In fact I think one of the RS's main arguments about Egypt is that only an independant class movement can achieve the demands of the democratic movement.

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

Does the "Socialist Forum" in Lebanon consist of anything more than Bassem Chit?

I wonder how long till Bassem Chit ends up in a ditch somewhere.

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

It seems the head of the General Federation of Trade Unions in Syria supports the government.

If the GFTU doesn't represent the Syrian working class, who does? Anonymous bloggers on the internet? The House of Saud?


"Chairman of the General Federation of Trade Unions, Mohammad Shaaban Azouz stressed that Syria is facing a multipolar global war led by the US, Britain, France and Turkey and funded by some reactionary Arab countries.

"Under the pretexts of spreading democracy and protecting the human rights, thousands of terrorists from all the countries of the world were trained, armed and sent to Syria to kill the Syrian people and destroy their state, in addition to imposing economic, banking and oil unjust sanctions against the Syrians," Azouz told the 102nd session of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conference in Geneva"

http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2013/06/13/487279.htm (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sana.sy%2Feng%2F22%2F2013 %2F06%2F13%2F487279.htm&h=2AQHwyeUh&s=1)

[ed miliband]

I wanted to reply to Devrim, but this post made me do a spit-take. What an outrageously callous statement to make from a figurative armchair! I don't know enough about the other groups to comment and I know only a little of the RS, but as far as the RS, people who don't care about the working class also probably wouldn't bother trying to organize workers under conditions of illegality or help organize a worker's party also under conditions of illegality. Your position must be feeble indeed if this is how you criticize politics you disagree with.

Here's an article by the editor of the US Socialist Worker criticizing the run-off election position of the RS. I don't expect you to agree, but just take a look to see how it is quite possible to hold a different position while also explaining the opposing argument on their own terms without having to distort their reasoning or call their dedication to class liberation (even if you don't think their politics or strategy can actually achieve this) into question:

Egypt's election dead end (http://socialistworker.org/2012/05/31/egypts-election-dead-end)

Secondly, to the actual political point made in your post. Well the character of these uprisings have been "popular" and "democratic" where workers as induviduals have been involved and in some cases working class forces to varrying degrees (significantly in Egypt). But how is the democratic struggle not also connected to class struggle even if workers have yet to organize and articulate an independant set of demands? In fact I think one of the RS's main arguments about Egypt is that only an independant class movement can achieve the demands of the democratic movement.

i don't think it's callous, certainly not outrageously so.

to be fair, it's not just trots, groups in the i.s. tradition, and so on, plenty of anarchists have bought into 'support the syrian people in their struggle for self-determination', and so on. i can see very few people offering any sort of class perspective, actively talking about the working class (in syria, but also in the wider region) as opposed to "the people" - an incredibly problematic category, especially in a conflict like this.

[Rafiq]

Devrim, perhaps then, we as Marxists can unconditionally label the war as a result of the barbarism of capitalism, like so many other tragedies caused by the capitalist mode of production? This seems like a suitable position.

[Sir Comradical]

Secondly, and this goes to Sir Comradical, I don't think Assad's victory would necessarily be better for the left, in the grand scheme of things. One thing that's important to realize is that since the fall of the Soviet Union (maybe even since Hafiz Al Assad took power), the Syrian government is not a "Left-bonapartist" state or a progressive-bourgeois state, it is, although secular, incredibly reactionary (one only needs to look at how they hosted the likes of David Duke) and festering with anti-semitism. But a victory for Islamists wouldn't necessarily be better. I honestly can't even form a solid position with regard to the situation in Syria besides opposing all sides, and although this position abstractly works, it seems too feeble.

My judgement tells me that tactically, it's better to support the Army, and steer the reform process in a Leftist direction. Personally I don't think it's a tough call when the prospects of a rebel victory are horrific.

[Devrim]

My judgement tells me that tactically, it's better to support the Army, and steer the reform process in a Leftist direction. Personally I don't think it's a tough call when the prospects of a rebel victory are horrific.

There are some people who can't see the wood for the trees. It is not the 'prospects of a rebel victory', but the very war itself which is horrific, over 100,000 dead, 130,000 missing, 3,000,000 internally displaced, 2,000,000 refugees having fled the country, the development of sectarian hatreds that could last for generations; This is what is terrible itself. Next to this the prospect of some possible future event pales into insignificance.

The idea that supporting the Syrian army will enable you to steer the reform process in a leftist direction would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I wanted to reply to Devrim, but this post made me do a spit-take. What an outrageously callous statement to make from a figurative armchair! I don't know enough about the other groups to comment and I know only a little of the RS, but as far as the RS, people who don't care about the working class also probably wouldn't bother trying to organize workers under conditions of illegality or help organize a worker's party also under conditions of illegality.

I really dislike this sort of fake moral outrage. The implication is that since the person making the statement lives in the West, and therefore of course has some comfortable lifestyle. The people being he is commenting on live in some far off country where the state is repressive, and by the logic of this argument are therefore above criticism from this sort of 'armchair' intellectual. The actual ideas raised are then brushed aside as 'outrageously callous', with the purpose of deflecting from their actual content.

I don't like to do this, but just for the content of this argument I am going to lay out my personal credentials. I have lived in two countries in the Middle East, and have been involved in nonlegal political organisations, personally taken part in strikes myself there, as well as having been involved in numourous strikes and demonstrations, and suffered the consequences for it. People who know me personally on this site can confirm this. At the moment, however, I am lining in Central Europe, and have been doing so for the past year and a half, and am sitting in a very comfortable spinning desk chair with wheels.

I don't think that this organisation is in anyway one that puts forward independent working class politics whatever their subjective intentions. As 'ed' said there is no mention of the working class whatsoever in this statement.

Let's look at what was said:


i would add that the authors of this statement - and indeed, all similar statements i have seen from similar organisations - don't argue from the perspective of the working class. the syrian working class may or may not exist, for all they care. for them, it's "the [syrian] people" against assad's regime. class doesn't come into the picture, they aren't interested.

Certainly there is no attempt to make any class analysis in this statement. Instead if people had said it had been produced by Arab nationalists instead of socialists I wouldn't at all be surprised.

It is produced by an organisation, which has taken up positions supporting the Ikwan in Egypt, whose sister sections have taken up positions supporting the Islamicist AKP in Turkey, and which is now calling for the support of one side in what is clearly becoming more and more clearly with each and every day, a sectarian civil war with different sides backed by the regional and international powers.

It is very interesting than it condemns in very harsh terms Shia sectarians, but seems to have nothing at all to say about sectarianism from Sunni Muslims.

Whatever these people subjectively believe, we have to look at their actual practice and ideas. Certainly I have never seen anything in any of their statements that leads me to think that they are taking up class perspectives. I have seen many things though that make me think that they are being dragged behind nationalism and Islamism.

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

I really dislike this sort of fake moral outrage.Why do you think it's fake? I guess the only moral part of the outrage here is that I think that we should be able to represent political differences without such lazy things like: well these people I disagree with their analysis, so they just don't care about the class struggle or workers.


The implication is that since the person making the statement lives in the West, and therefore of course has some comfortable lifestyle. The people being he is commenting on live in some far off country where the state is repressive, and by the logic of this argument are therefore above criticism from this sort of 'armchair' intellectual. The actual ideas raised are then brushed aside as 'outrageously callous', with the purpose of deflecting from their actual content.They had no real political content, this was the source of the outrage. And my armchair thing was to be provocative, but I would include us all in this category in this case since none of us are organizing in Egypt. If someone said, for example, "I don't think the politicts and methods of the KKE in Greece will help the struggle because of X, Y, Z" then that is an argument with "content". If someone said, the KKE, doen't care about the class struggle, I would consider that a lazy criticism at best and I would find it outrageous and not helpful.


Certainly there is no attempt to make any class analysis in this statement. Instead if people had said it had been produced by Arab nationalists instead of socialists I wouldn't at all be surprised.

Well if the same statement had positions you agreed with, then I think you would clearly say, well they didn't go into length discussing the class charater of the uprising because this was a statement about the bombings. It's goalpost moving (or something) to say, well X group didn't say this in a statement about Y... if an anarchist read a statement like that would they say, where is the analysis of the state in this statement?

When people argue that, for example, the RS supports the Brotherhood without putting that into context (irregardless of supporting their position or not) and then use that as proof that they "don't care about class" - they are obscuring the ACTUAL political argument which is over how the existing situation could be subjectivly improved in terms of an independant class movement.

You don't seem to have a class answer for this other than it's a horrible situation (quite true) and most likely will end up as sectarian conflicts molded by various outside forces (very likely and I think this, not supporting one side over the other is the US's real motivation for action... create disorder that the US can then have more influnce or come in or have the UN come in as an arbitrator).

So the political argument being put forward in Egypt by the RS is that even though the working class is not yet organized or coherent enough to lead the popular movement, that the RS and other left groups should try and help put together working class forces, but part of that is navigating the changing situations of the larger popular movement. So their whole estimation of why the Brotherhood should be supported in the run-off was because the Military figurehead was promising to "clear the streets in 24 hours of the election" and had tried to put marshall law into effect.
Their support for the so-called coup against Morsi was also based on a view that a precident that mass protest can remove the figurehead meant that the revolution could continue to develop, their arguments against the repression of the Brotherhood was based on an understanding that this is repression that is and will be used against workers in strikes as well as the broad movement.

i can see very few people offering any sort of class perspective, actively talking about the working class (in syria, but also in the wider region) as opposed to "the people" - an incredibly problematic category, especially in a conflict like this.Well as I said, for the most part workers have only taken part as a section of "the people" and have not put their own demands forward. In the IST traddition the standard line on what is likely to happen to the working class in situations like this is: "they're fucked". The concept of a "deflected permanent revolution" is basically that if the ruling class can't contain the masses, but the workers are unable to carry out the revolution then either repression or some kind of middle class elements will come to power (nationalists, "Socialists" of the state-capitalist sort, populist military figures like in Latin America). But unfortuantely for the RS, revolutionary crisis doesn't happen according to when the class is ready for it and so they are trying to deal with how to at least fight for conditions where workers can continue to organize and not be repressed. They will make mistakes, I think the run-off election is one, there probably won't be a working class revolution but the question is what should worker groups and radical groups try and do in these situations? How does a popular rebellion become a class rebellion, or at least how can the class put itself in a better more independant position?

Do you or does Devrim have any views on this? What's an alternative for people who might find themselves in a situation like this? As for Syria, as I see it the three main potential views would be that the defeat of the rebellion would be better for potential class movements because it might keep US imperialism at bay in Syria; the rebellion would be better because it would create more social and political openings for worker's to assert their interests and influence if not lead the revolt; or it would be best to argue against workers taking any sides and to focus on class-specific issues.

Maybe this is a crude way to break down differnet views, but from these positions it's possible to debate different views. It's impossible to do that if other perspectives are just callously dismissed.

[Le Socialiste]

They now have transitioned to opposing the brotherhood, without any explanation for the change. They also oppose the army, which is good, but not without going so far as calling the revolution ehich overthrew Morsi a coup, which is bad.

I'm a little confused, are you saying the RS haven't gone so far as to call the military's ouster of Morsi a coup, or that they have called it that?

From a recent statement/article (The counterrevolution cries conspiracy (http://socialistworker.org/2013/09/04/the-counterrevolution-cries-conspiracy)):


COUNTERREVOLUTIONS AND military coups always use the idea of "foreign conspiracies" to paint all those who oppose them as traitors and to justify their brutal oppression. They do this to create a situation of national hysteria to cover up their crimes.

They clearly characterize the occurrence as a "military coup," while acknowledging the significance of the mobilizations against Morsi. They haven't gone so far as to call the entire process a coup, if that's what you happen to be getting at.

I feel like comrades are engaging in some very loose generalizations here, which isn't really conducive to an honest debate regarding the role and character of the RS (or any of the other aforementioned signatories to the posted statement). What's worse is the prevalence of this dismissive attitude which holds little basis or grounding in political principle, but lies on the shaky reasoning of "they didn't mention the working-class!" "Class collaborationists!" "IST flunkies!"

(Which clearly flows from a principled standpoint, but is presented in a crude, baseless fashion.)

That isn't to say I don't agree with some of the points that Devrim made, but I do find much of what they have to say to be widely off the mark. That is a debatable point, obviously - so let's talk it out (if comrades are willing).

[Le Socialiste]

It seems the head of the General Federation of Trade Unions in Syria supports the government.

Seeing as the GFTU is the sole official trade union in the country (all other unions are required to affiliate with it) and is closely tied to the Baath party, this comes as no surprise. The president of the union (Shaaban Azzouz) is a member of the party for christ's sake! What more could you expect?

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

Seeing as the GFTU is the sole official trade union in the country (all other unions are required to affiliate with it) and is closely tied to the Baath party, this comes as no surprise. The president of the union (Shaaban Azzouz) is a member of the party for christ's sake! What more could you expect?

So the leader of a trade union federation, which is affiliated with the World Federation of Trade Unions (you know, the red one), is a member of a socialist party? lol

You mean he is kinda like Labor Lieutenant John Sweeney or something? lmao



The AFL-CIO stands firmly behind our troops. These brave men and women are America’s best.

The Iraqi regime is a brutal dictatorship that is a threat to its neighbors and its own citizens. We support fully the goal of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. We sincerely hope this conflict will result in a more democratic and prosperous Iraq and a more peaceful and stable region, and that it will be resolved with little loss of life. For this to occur, it is vital that the Administration work diligently to repair relations abroad and rebuild a true global coalition to engage in the task of reconstruction and democratization in Iraq

lmao

Here if the WFTU statement, by the way.



The World Federation of Trade Unions categorically denounces the intensified imperialist aggressiveness against Syria and calls for the immediate termination of any attack and military intervention being pursued against the country and the Syrian people. In conditions of strong inter-imperialist competition and in conditions of deep and prolonged international capitalist crisis where the rivalries over the wealth-producing resources and the geostrategic crossroads are increasing, the conflict in the Middle East and the Mediterranean reaches new extremes.
The manufactured etiology for the “use of chemical weapons” that is being attributed to the Syrian Army is an obvious provocative slander aiming to provide an opportunity for the military intervention expected and prepared for years by the USA and the other forces.
The global Mass Media, owned by Multinational Groups, are fully coordinated with the imperialist agenda and are enriching the campaign of misinformation, building the people’s inertia or endorsement for yet another slaughter.
The forces within the country, which are morally and practically supported by the USA, Britain, France as well as Turkey, Israel and the Emirs and Kings of Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc., have nothing to do with the interests of the Syrian people, neither with the “peace” nor with the “democracy” that they are supposedly espousing.
The “democracy” applied in Afganistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Mali: we do not need it, we do not want it! No more blood for the interests of the multinationals.
We call upon all the trade union organizations, members and friends of the WFTU, as well as all the peace-loving people and mass organizations internationally to protest their condemnation against the imperialist policy and the solidarity with the people of Syria.
The Syrian people without foreign intervention are the only one who can and must decide upon their present and future.
THE SECRETARIAT

[Le Socialiste]

So the leader of a trade union federation, which is affiliated with the World Federation of Trade Unions (you know, the red one), is a member of a socialist party?

The Baathists aren't socialists, though.

[Skyhilist]

A problem in this thread: the use of the term "the rebels" as if they are one homogenous groups.
"The rebels" are not one group. They are made up of a bunch of different factions who are constantly fighting even with each other. There are right wing factions and there are left wing factions. Most of the factions are right wing Islamists. These are the people who the US would like to see win for strategical reasons, and these are the people the US is providing all sorts of things for. These people are scumbags. The left wing factions of the Syrian resistance, however, are not necessarily scumbags. However, they represent a minority of the different rebel factions and likely will not seize power if the FSA wins.

So "the rebels" = a nonsensical way to act as if everyone fighing Assad is the saem
Assad = evil
Right wing factions of the rebels = equal
US imperialist support = mostly for the right wing factions
Left wing factions of the rebels. = underdogs who probably wont win but sill deserve our support for the most part

US intervention = more likely for right wing factions to win
Russian intervention = more likely for Assad to win
Any imperialist intervention = evil wins
No imperialist intervention = slightly more likely for radical left to win some battles (although they're still obviously an underdog)

It's misleading to say that these guys are supporting "the same side of the US" when the USA is supporting right wing factions of rebels and these guys are supporting revolutionary left factions of rebels.

I only skimmed over the article, but if they are calling it a revolution then yeah that definitely doesn't make sense. Revolutionary leftists don't have anywhere near high enough numbers or anywhere near enough support or chances of winning for it to be called that.

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

The Baathists aren't socialists, though.

But it's right there in the name! You know, like the International "Socialist" Organization.

lmao

[Le Socialiste]

But it's right there in the name! You know, like the International "Socialist" Organization.

lmao

So we're taking things at face value then? Come on now, try harder. Even the German Nazi party called itself a "workers' party" (it's right there in the name); calling oneself a socialist doesn't mean shit if it isn't substantiated by the content and nature of the organization in question. The Baathists were, on the whole, an outgrowth of Arab nationalism and pan-Arab 'unity', itself a reaction to the impact of Western colonialism and occupation. Whatever the Baathist movement was at its inception (and I must admit my knowledge of it is marginal at best), it no longer is today. Bashar al-Assad, for example, has been implementing neoliberal reforms and privatization programs since taking office after his father's death in 2000 - even going so far as to deprive funding to state-sanctioned workers and peasants' unions that might get in the way of reform efforts. Hell, in 2006 Syria was the 4th highest recipient of direct foreign investment amounting to over $1 billion. Guess who the primary investors were? I'll give you a hint: they're now funding friendly elements within the rebel movement.

And if this isn't enough, just look at the fact that both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry hailed Assad as a "reformer" before and during the protests against his government. The initial plans of the U.S. were to seek out a solution more similar to the Yemen situation (remove the head of government while keeping the fundamental structures of the regime in place), and even now senior military officers are acknowledging that any intended strikes by U.S. forces "will not strategically impact the current situation in the war (http://news.yahoo.com/us-plans-3-days-attack-syria-092116189.html)."

So yeah, forgive me if I seem highly skeptical of anyone claiming the Baathists - in their present situation - resemble anything close to what many would identify as socialist.

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

So we're taking things at face value then?So you too don't think the ISO is really "socialist" just because it has that in its name? lmao


Bashar al-Assad, for example, has been implementing neoliberal reforms and privatization programs since taking office after his father's death in 2000 - even going so far as to deprive funding to state-sanctioned workers and peasants' unions that might get in the way of reform efforts. Hell, in 2006 Syria was the 4th highest recipient of direct foreign investment amounting to over $1 billion.Doesn't the ISO take hundreds of thousands of dollars from dead-capitalist foundations? lmao

I don't see what the big deal of attracting foreign investment is. It worked out pretty good in China, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. Though it seems the imperialists are never truly willing to invest on terms not set by them.


and even now senior military officers are acknowledging that any intended strikes by U.S. forces "will not strategically impact the current situation in the war (http://news.yahoo.com/us-plans-3-days-attack-syria-092116189.html)."Your faith in the Pentagon is quite strong, lol.

[Le Socialiste]

I only skimmed over the article, but if they are calling it a revolution then yeah that definitely doesn't make sense. Revolutionary leftists don't have anywhere near high enough numbers or anywhere near enough support or chances of winning for it to be called that.

Well, a revolution isn't something that falls exclusively under the banner of socialism. The bourgeois revolutions of the 19th century prove that. An explicitly socialist revolution doesn't materialize out of thin air, it requires a conscious effort on the part of the working-class and a mass revolutionary party - with roots in the movements and struggles of the proletariat - capable of understanding the so-called lines and contours of where the struggle is headed (and where it needs to go). A revolution doesn't cease to qualify as such simply because the revolutionary left doesn't have the numbers or influence to carry it forward. The Syrian uprising dovetails neatly (or messily) with the initial and ongoing struggles playing out across northern Africa and parts of the Middle East; the fact that it has so far been the bloodiest, most destructive revolution (having descended into a civil war of Assad's own making) doesn't negate the character of the revolt or the myriad of factors leading into to it - despite the regime's and outside power's attempts to steer the conflict in a sectarian direction.

[Le Socialiste]

I don't see what the big deal of attracting foreign investment is. It worked out pretty good in China, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. Though it seems the imperialists are never truly willing to invest on terms not set by them.

Don't forget the Assad regime's cozy relationship with American imperialism too, which involved acting as a torturer of "suspects" rendered to Syria by the U.S. during Bush's presidency (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/13/maher_arar_my_rendition_torture_in).

[Per Levy]

It seems the head of the General Federation of Trade Unions in Syria supports the government.

If the GFTU doesn't represent the Syrian working class, who does? Anonymous bloggers on the internet? The House of Saud?

ah ja the union who is part of the ruling party/state and the only legal union "represents the syrian working class". the syrian bourgeoisie probally trembles in fear of the gftu.

[Le Socialiste]

Also found it interesting that Edward Luttwack, who has a pretty lengthy career at some of the highest levels of the foreign policy establishment, recently argued that a "prolonged stalemate [in Syria] is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=0)"

The title of Luttwack's linked to article speaks volumes: "In Syria, America loses if either side wins." I think this is largely in line with the perspective of the Obama administration. At this point, it seems like the U.S. would be content with letting both sides duke it out, without giving too much aid or support to either for fear of tipping the balance of forces. At the end of the day though, the most likely end goal (as envisioned by the U.S. and Israel) is Assad's regime - minus Assad.

[Red_Banner]

Does anybody know anything about the Democratic Union Party in Syria?


Are they really leftist or are they just Kurdish nationalists?

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

ah ja the union who is part of the ruling party/state and the only legal union "represents the syrian working class". the syrian bourgeoisie probally trembles in fear of the gftu.

You mean like the Labor Lieutenants in the AFL-CIO are feared by Amerikan imperialists?

lmao

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

Don't forget the Assad regime's cozy relationship with American imperialism too, which involved acting as a torturer of "suspects" rendered to Syria by the U.S. during Bush's presidency (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/13/maher_arar_my_rendition_torture_in).

You mean, Assad co-operated with US imperialism when it was pretending to go after the McJihadis it created?

You don't say? lmao

[Le Socialiste]

You mean, Assad co-operated with US imperialism when it was pretending to go after the McJihadis it created?

You don't say? lmao

Are you denying the fact that Assad cooperated with the U.S. in the detainment and torture of supposed "terrorists"?

[Comrade Sun Wukong]

Are you denying the fact that Assad cooperated with the U.S. in the detainment and torture of supposed "terrorists"?

Why wouldn't the Syrian government work with the US government to attack a traditional enemy of theirs? Libya and Syria had been dealing with murderous fascist McJihadis for years before the US imperialists got mad at them over a couple blazing buildings in Manhattan, lmao.

Kinda like how Amerika worked with the USSR to take down the Nazis.

[Le Socialiste]

Why wouldn't the Syrian government work with the US government to attack a traditional enemy of theirs? Libya and Syria had been dealing with murderous fascist McJihadis for years before the US imperialists got mad at them over a couple blazing buildings in Manhattan, lmao.

Kinda like how Amerika worked with the USSR to take down the Nazis.

Except many of the people detained and transported to Syria weren't actually engaging in 'terror-related activities' (including the man mentioned in the link I provided). But never mind, I'm sure you'll find a way to justify that as well. It's actually somewhat interesting, watching you contort your way around every example of why Assad's regime isn't worth supporting. Anything for the cause, am I right?

[Devrim]

Does anybody know anything about the Democratic Union Party in Syria?

Are they really leftist or are they just Kurdish nationalists?

It is part of the Koma Civakên Kurdistan, commonly know as the PKK.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I guess the only moral part of the outrage here is that I think that we should be able to represent political differences without such lazy things like: well these people I disagree with their analysis, so they just don't care about the class struggle or workers.
...
Well if the same statement had positions you agreed with, then I think you would clearly say, well they didn't go into length discussing the class charater of the uprising because this was a statement about the bombings. It's goalpost moving (or something) to say, well X group didn't say this in a statement about Y... if an anarchist read a statement like that would they say, where is the analysis of the state in this statement?

I think that saying that this statement has nothing to say about the working class is quite a valid point, and in no way lazy criticism. It has nothing to say about the working class. This is not the same as saying that a statement about, for example, gay rights has nothing to say about the elections. For communists class is central, and everything that we have to say is base upon a class analysis. This statement isn't, and from that I don't think that it is extrapolating to far to say that they have no interest in the working class.

It is not just that it has no interest in class though. It is even worse than that. It is taking a side in what each and every day is becoming more obviously a proxy inter-imperialist conflict. It openly puts this group o the same side as the regional powers intervening in the conflict, and its attacks upon the sectarianism of one side, without even mentioning the sectarianism on another are nauseating. This is a sectarian war where workers are murdering each other for the interests of various regional and international powers. By supporting one side, this statement crosses a class line.


You don't seem to have a class answer for this other than it's a horrible situation (quite true) and most likely will end up as sectarian conflicts molded by various outside forces (very likely

No, I don't. Unfortunately there isn't one. When there isn't a class answer that doesn't mean though that we should just jump onto the bandwagon of any passing bourgeois faction.

The situation in Syria is terrible now. The working class is unable to assert itself in any way. However, the situation across the region is not lost. What communists have to argue for is for working class interests. These interests do not involve supporting this sectarian war. This statement, and it is a statement coming from groups across the region, takes a completely opposite approach. It is particularly dangerous in Lebanon, which has a very real danger of being engulfed in the Syrian conflict. What communists there should be arguing against is the division of the working class along sectarian lines, whereas this leaflet actually takes a position in supporting one side. It is criminal.


So the political argument being put forward in Egypt by the RS is that even though the working class is not yet organized or coherent enough to lead the popular movement, that the RS and other left groups should try and help put together working class forces, but part of that is navigating the changing situations of the larger popular movement. So their whole estimation of why the Brotherhood should be supported in the run-off was because the Military figurehead was promising to "clear the streets in 24 hours of the election" and had tried to put marshall law into effect.
Their support for the so-called coup against Morsi was also based on a view that a precident that mass protest can remove the figurehead meant that the revolution could continue to develop, their arguments against the repression of the Brotherhood was based on an understanding that this is repression that is and will be used against workers in strikes as well as the broad movement.

It is a political argument that has nothing to do with developing working class independence. Instead what it tries to do is to tie the working class to the bourgeois factions that it perceives as being more favourable to the development of a 'working class movement'. This is being very kind to them though as they don't even see it in those terms. They see it in terms of the people's movement. It has nothing to do with working class politics.


Do you or does Devrim have any views on this? What's an alternative for people who might find themselves in a situation like this?

The alternative is very clear. It needs a class orientation though, and these people don't have it. The alternative is to do what you can to build class power, and not run around tail-ending Islamicist electoral politics or military coups.


As for Syria, as I see it the three main potential views would be that the defeat of the rebellion would be better for potential class movements because it might keep US imperialism at bay in Syria; the rebellion would be better because it would create more social and political openings for worker's to assert their interests and influence if not lead the revolt; or it would be best to argue against workers taking any sides and to focus on class-specific issues.

As I have pointed out already in this thread it is the war itself which is the absolute disaster for the working class. Next to that whichever side wins it pales into insignificance.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Their support for the so-called coup against Morsi

What else do you call it when the army removes the government, and locks up the Prime Minister?

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think that saying that this statement has nothing to say about the working class is quite a valid point,Sure, but you are switching the comrades criticism from "Their politics don't care about class" to "This statement says nothing about class". It's a leap in logic to say that a statement that is not an analysis of the entirity of the conflict but of the US intervention doesn't have much class analysis means that the politics of these groups "don't care about class politics". That's just not true so it's either coming from a place of ignorance - which is fine, this is the internet afterall - or it's a lazy obfuscation of an actual political difference in which they say that conditions for the class would be better without US intervention or better with the revolution overthrowing Assad and your position seems to be that either way, there is no difference for workers.


and in no way lazy criticism. Maybe not for the statement itself, but I was not outraged by that, but by the conclusion that different politics just means:


class doesn't come into the picture, they aren't interested.


This statement isn't, and from that I don't think that it is extrapolating to far to say that they have no interest in the working class.Well then that would be the other option: lazy analysis if you base your entire understanding on a group by one statement in isolation from what their arguments are based on. Again, they have that position because they think it would be a better situation for class struggle - that's the debate, not if this group cares about class struggle.


It is not just that it has no interest in class though. It is even worse than that. It is taking a side in what each and every day is becoming more obviously a proxy inter-imperialist conflict. It openly puts this group o the same side as the regional powers intervening in the conflict, and its attacks upon the sectarianism of one side, without even mentioning the sectarianism on another are nauseating. This is a sectarian war where workers are murdering each other for the interests of various regional and international powers. By supporting one side, this statement crosses a class line.See that's a political debate. I disagree and I think their view is that the rebellion has the potential for workers to assert themselves - imperial intervention may change the nature of the rebellion (and I think this is one of the goals - for the US to give the parts of the rebellion that might be more open to todieness more leverage).



No, I don't. Unfortunately there isn't one. When there isn't a class answer that doesn't mean though that we should just jump onto the bandwagon of any passing bourgeois faction.

The situation in Syria is terrible now. The working class is unable to assert itself in any way. However, the situation across the region is not lost. What communists have to argue for is for working class interests. These interests do not involve supporting this sectarian war. This statement, and it is a statement coming from groups across the region, takes a completely opposite approach. It is particularly dangerous in Lebanon, which has a very real danger of being engulfed in the Syrian conflict. What communists there should be arguing against is the division of the working class along sectarian lines, whereas this leaflet actually takes a position in supporting one side. It is criminal.
Well first I think it's reductionist to say that the rebellion is homogeneously pro-intervention, pro-Islamicist, etc - from my pretty superficial (armchair) understanding, it seems to still be pretty heterogeneous, but this can change are there are certaintly many forces trying to bend and shape the rebellion one way or another. I don't know about the left's specific role in this, so I can't really comment about what the possibilities might be there, or how probable this or that outcome might be. In Egypt I think this is what the RS has been trying to do with their Labor Party attempts - to try and help create a way for class demands and leadership to be a real force. What is your alternative? How do working class interests emerge as a leading force in the rebellions?

Your position is entirely propagandistic and I think this is why you feel you have to totally discount alternative views as not interested in class politics rather than critique them constructivly.


It is a political argument that has nothing to do with developing working class independence. Instead what it tries to do is to tie the working class to the bourgeois factions that it perceives as being more favourable to the development of a 'working class movement'.
Yes, I see you disagree with their position - so how do you propose that in situations like these radicals help forward the potential for an independant class movement?

Secondly I think that of course a "people's rebellion" has to do with class. Workers are part of "the people" - the part that actually has an interest in liberation and can therefore be a "universal" force that changes society rather than just changes it's leaders. Social and economic struggles are linked and intertwined in my view and so the trick in a broad movement for democracy is how to help bring working class forces, militant workers, into leading roles and an understanding that it's the working class that can solve the problems that initiated the unrest whereas the bourgoise can only switch from this neoliberal plan to that, from this kind of repression to that. In places like Egypt where democratic repression and labor repression are linked... of course the democratic movement and the class movement are tied in with eachother. In the medium-term the RS project seems to be to build a broad class force - I think the criticism there might be that it's too timid, not that "they don't care about class". In the short term they are trying to navigate what will be favorable for that development - again that's their reasoning for their position on the Run-off, supporting the mass protests against Morsi, and also trying to organize against the repression of the Brotherhood because they think it won't stop with them and will really be an all-out repression against any disent.


The alternative is very clear. It needs a class orientation though, and these people don't have it. The alternative is to do what you can to build class power, and not run around tail-ending Islamicist electoral politics or military coups.Ok, so what people should do in your opinion is don't do this. ...but then, what SHOULD they do?


As I have pointed out already in this thread it is the war itself which is the absolute disaster for the working class. Next to that whichever side wins it pales into insignificance.Yeah, ok, but this is the hand that's been delt to the radicals and the class as a whole. Given that this can not be ignored for people there as it can for us when we throw up our hands and say: well looks grim.

Also I think there are strange implications for this view. What crisis won't have also the possibility of sectarian conflict - especially when there is little or no class movement? If class forces are weak and we end up in a crisis like this do we just say, "well better luck next time, we'll have to wait for the conflict to end before we can hope to organize anything". This came off as glib, but from my perspective, this is a real problem and question - there's a return of crisis, but unlike in the 20th century where the first decades saw large reformist and class and some revolutionary movements and workers had real forces organized to some extent in many places.

[Devrim]

Sure, but you are switching the comrades criticism from "Their politics don't care about class" to "This statement says nothing about class". It's a leap in logic to say that a statement that is not an analysis of the entirity of the conflict but of the US intervention doesn't have much class analysis means that the politics of these groups "don't care about class politics". That's just not true so it's either coming from a place of ignorance - which is fine, this is the internet afterall - or it's a lazy obfuscation of an actual political difference in which they say that conditions for the class would be better without US intervention or better with the revolution overthrowing Assad and your position seems to be that either way, there is no difference for workers.

It is not that this statement 'doesn't have much class analysis'. It doesn't have any class analysis. Now I think, as a communist, that class analysis is central, and can't think of a subject where it wouldn't be. It is interesting that you said previously that anarchists would go on about it not saying anything about the state:


if an anarchist read a statement like that would they say, where is the analysis of the state in this statement?

The reason that I return to this point is that at the moment there is a thread (http://libcom.org/news/toward-anarchist-policy-syria-09092013) on Libcom discussing another statement on Syria where a well-known UK anarchist asks...not about the state, but about class:


Since the outbreak of the civil war, the working class as a class hasn't asserted itself at all, nor do their seem to be any significant independent organisational forms of workers which could assert themselves (on a related note, your article seems to conspicuously steer clear of talking about the working class, why is this?)

Now you might see class as a minor point that is only vaguely to this question. I, and some anarchists, don't see it that way at all. We see it as central.


Well then that would be the other option: lazy analysis if you base your entire understanding on a group by one statement in isolation from what their arguments are based on. Again, they have that position because they think it would be a better situation for class struggle - that's the debate, not if this group cares about class struggle.

This isn't true. I have read more than this from this group. Actually, I would imagine that I have read more from them than you have. I don't think they are interested in what I would describe as class politics.


I disagree and I think their view is that the rebellion has the potential for workers to assert themselves - imperial intervention may change the nature of the rebellion

The movement in Syria was very different from the movement in Egypt. To give just a basic example in Egypt at the time of the Tahrir square movement there was also workers struggle in the factories. In Syria workers' strikes have been conspicuous by their absence.

A sectarian war where workers are turned against their fellow workers is not a situation where 'workers have the potential to assert themselves'. To think so is to completely lose any grip on reality.


Well first I think it's reductionist to say that the rebellion is homogeneously pro-intervention, pro-Islamicist, etc

I didn't at any point say this.


but this can change are there are certaintly many forces trying to bend and shape the rebellion one way or another. I don't know about the left's specific role in this, so I can't really comment about what the possibilities might be there, or how probable this or that outcome might be.

This misses the point completely. It is not about 'the left's' role. It is about the working class' role, and the working class, as a class (of course there are individual workers fighting on both side) has played no role in any of this in Syria.


Your position is entirely propagandistic and I think this is why you feel you have to totally discount alternative views as not interested in class politics rather than critique them constructivly.

And your position, or the RS' position is not propogandistic in what way? The think is that I don't think that this is a mistaken or merely wrong position. I think that this is a thoroughly reactionary position taking a side in what is effectively an inter-imperialist conflict.


Also I think there are strange implications for this view. What crisis won't have also the possibility of sectarian conflict - especially when there is little or no class movement? If class forces are weak and we end up in a crisis like this do we just say, "well better luck next time, we'll have to wait for the conflict to end before we can hope to organize anything".

That is kind of the point here isn't it. There is no class movement, and the left can't bring one into existence by merely willing it, and it certainly can not do so by issuing statements backing one side in an inter imperialist conflict, and taking up positions verging on chauvinism as this leaflet does.

Devrim