Results 101 to 104 of 104
Curious, the website says nothing about representing Syria's LCCs:
But yeah, a Syrian activist who also happens to be a member of the Revolutionary Left Current must not know what they're talking about, right? It is just a "rebel activist site" after all...
I suppose this interview with a member of one of the National Unity Brigades is just full of shit, too. Granted, there's some confused beliefs and/or language expressed in that link (notions of 'patriotism' and a willingness to fight alongside anyone so long as they're against the regime, for example), but it's also indicative of the fact that not every rebel is, as some here like to repeatedly claim, a member of Al-Qaeda. I'd also like to highlight some of the names of those brigades currently fighting in Syria, too (taken from the aforementioned interview):
"Socialist ideas become significant only to the extent that they become rooted in the working class."
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. . .Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
SocialistWorker.org
International Socialist Review
Marxists Internet Archive
Syria also supported the Gulf War against Iraq under daddy Assad. Both Libya and Syria cooperated with the US against its enemies, and Gaddafi was notorious for torturing captives sent to him by the CIA. But worst of all was both regime's relationship with the Palestinian struggle.
I'm quite aware of the history of the region. My goal is to put an end to romantic notions about the Syrian "revolution".
The site psycho posted has the same announcement.
I don't think anyone is claiming that all the Syrian rebels are al-Qaeda. But why do they fight alongside al-Qaeda? Why do they take western and Gulf weapons and directives? Why hasn't there been so much as a peep about this from brigades named after historical anti-colonialist figures?
Who here has been espousing 'romantic notions' about the situation in Syria? In any event, your efforts have been entirely one-sided seeing as you largely target those of us who have explicitly stated our critical support for various elements of the uprising. That's what it comes down to, really. My support for certain sections of the movement is a result of careful examination and assessment. I'm not retaining any romanticized ideas of what the Syrian conflict is and looks like. I realize things can change rapidly (as they have over the past two years). But I also wish to look at the rebellion within the wider context of neoliberalism and reform inside Syria and the broader region, balanced with the responsive shifts and movements of class forces. Marx and Engels, in their early assessment of the bourgeoisie, defined the emergent class as a comparatively 'revolutionary' force - insofar as it represented the destruction of prior systems, marking a definite progression into the next epoch of class struggle.
While it is certainly not wholly appropriate to blindly compare the transitional structural makeups of mid-to-late 19th century society with the ensuing conflicts within Syria, a nugget of consistency should - and must - remain with us in our analysis: that the establishment of a civil, democratic Syrian state will, on the whole, present a definite progression (albeit riddled with more, not fewer, internal contradictions).
I think the example of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt makes for a fine, though not perfect parallel; that is, the propulsion of the MB into state and legislative power presented a new phase in the struggle. Whereas the election of Shafik might have served as a further hindrance on the movement's ongoing development, Mubarak's presidency has served to both preserve the initial gains of the initial revolt and expose the contradictions of the 'democratic process' and the Brotherhood's commitment to neoliberalism. The movement has thus, by the very conditions of its continued existence, been forced to evolve - and the past several months have seen rising strike waves, an emboldening of the working-class, and a deepening level of struggle - in tandem with growing resentment towards the Brotherhood and a likening of the organization with elements of the old regime.
Now, the conflict in Syria will not follow the same patterns as the Egyptian revolution in its entirety. It will however serve a similar purpose if successful: to broaden the next general phase in Syrian class and political development and deepen new and preexisting contradictions within the country. Of course, I continue to support the more revolutionary elements of the rebellion involved in the efforts to oust Assad, but I recognize that these remain largely marginal in relation to the whole of the movement.
Ahem:
Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. and its allies have continued to limit the flow of arms into Syria. Many media reports often include criticisms from the rebels of the U.S. and others for stopping all but light weaponry from entering the country, including anti-aircraft systems that could help against the government's air force. Many have rejected attempts to influence or sway rebels' loyalty to one or another power, such as Moaz al-Khatib (who recently resigned from his position as head of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces). He recently voiced his concerns about how outside powers are trying to intervene in the conflict, saying:
As for rebels seeking arms from outside the country, this is hardly the failing y'all who oppose the rebellion make it out to be. They were all but forced to after the Assad regime decided to drown the movement in its own blood. The ruthlessness of the government made nonviolent protest impossible. The most pressing issue for the rebels is the means by which these weapons are acquired and whether they'll be able to retain their independence as a result.Originally Posted by Moaz al-Khatib
As for the National Unity Brigades, here is what was said about outside support:
"Socialist ideas become significant only to the extent that they become rooted in the working class."
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. . .Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
SocialistWorker.org
International Socialist Review
Marxists Internet Archive
